Verse 9.143 [Sons not Entitled to a Share in the Parental Property]

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अनियुक्तासुतश्चैव पुत्रिण्याऽप्तश्च देवरात् ।
उभौ तौ नार्हतो भागं जारजातककामजौ ॥ १४३ ॥

aniyuktāsutaścaiva putriṇyā'ptaśca devarāt |
ubhau tau nārhato bhāgaṃ jārajātakakāmajau || 143 ||

The offspring of a wife not ‘authorised,’ and the offspring obtained from her younger brother-in-law by a woman who has already got a son,—both of these are undeserving of a share; one being born of an adulterer, and the other being the product of lust.—(143)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared above that, when the husband dies without male issue, the wife should obtain the sanction of her elders for the begetting of a son. And this same declaration is reiterated here.

If a woman is ‘not authorised’ by her elders, and yet being anxious for a son, begets one,—under the impression that she being the ‘soil’ of her husband, the son born of her would be his ‘Kṣetraja’ son and thus entitled to inherit his property,—a son born in this manner shall not inherit his father’s property; because a son is called ‘Kṣetraja’ only when he is born in the manner expressly laid down in the scriptures; and it. is only then that he inherits the property of the ‘owner of the soil’ (his dead father). It is for this reason that the present verse denies the inheriting capacity of the son born of the woman not duly ‘authorised;’ but it does not forbid the offering of the funeral cake; even though the son is one born of an ‘outcast’ woman.

Narada (13.19 et. seq) lays down a special rule—‘Those that are born from an unauthorised woman, either by one or by several men, are not entitled to the property of their father; being, as they are, the sons of the persons from whose seed they have been born;—they shall offer the cake to the person from whose seed they are born, specially if the mother has been obtained by 1 he payment of the nuptial foe; if however the mother has not been obtained by the payment of the fee, they shall offer the cake to the person who had wedded their mother,’

The text uses the term ‘suta,’ ‘offspring’ (instead of ‘putra’ son), because the child referred to is not born in accordance with the law relating to the ‘adopted’ and other sons, and is, on that account, not mentioned among ‘sons.’ Among the twice-born people the issues of one’s mere ‘seed’ (and not of lawful wedlock) are entitled to mere subsistence, and not to the inheritance of property; specially as in connection with all kinds of sons it has been declared that ‘on the death of their father the sons shall divide among themselves the property of their father, left over after the performance of the necessary religious rites; and they are all entitled to maintenance,’ Thus it is the duty of the Legitimate son to provide for the maintenance of the unlawfully-begotten sons; but these latter are not entitled to any inheritance in the property; specially because inheritance has been declared to belong to those particular kinds of sons that have been specially enumerated: We read (in 9.102) of ‘the two heirs’ (whore only two sons are spoken of as ‘heirs’).

From what is said here it follows that ‘the issue of the unauthorised woman,’ not entitled to the property of his lawful father, does become a sharer in that of the person from whose seed he is born; and the share in this case would be just enough for his subsistence.

Then again, as the woman has been obtained at a price, she is a ‘slave,’ and the son ‘slave-born;’ and as such, he is entitled not to a share in the property, but to mere subsistence.

Others have held that, even though the woman may not be a regular ‘slave’ (in the technical sense), she is a servant all the same, since the servant is always employed for doing a definite work; e.g., the bath-man, the toilet-man, the cook and so forth; the woman kept for pleasure also is employed for a definite work,—and is fed and clothed; and hence she is as good as a servant.

Similarly also in the case of the woman who has already got a son, if the son is alive, and yet she obtains a son from her younger brother-in-law, even on ‘authorisation.’

“But how can there be ‘authorisation’ in the ease of a woman who has already got a son?”

It is the brother-in-law who may be ‘authorised’ for the purposes of pleasure, under the pretext of begetting a son.

As a matter of fact, both of these are ‘born of an adulterer;’ the one born of a woman who has already got a son is, in addition, also ‘the product of lust.’ In the case of the former the action is prompted entirely by a longing for a son, and not by lust.—(143)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 368);—and in Vivādaratnākara, (p. 586), which adds the following notes—‘Aniyuktāsutaḥ’ is the son begotten by the widow without the permission of her elders;—‘bhāgam’ share in the property of the husband of the widow;—this means that such a son is precluded from the offering of Piṇḍas and other rites also. This refers to cases where the widow has been bought over to the connection.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.143-144)

Gautama (28.23).—‘A son begotten by another relation on a widow whose husband’s brother is alive,—is excluded from inheritance.’

Nārada (13.19-20; Vivādaratnākara, p. 387).—‘Sons begotten on a widow not authorised, by one or many persons, are not entitled to inherit,—they being the sons of