Verse 9.155

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

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्रापुत्रो न रिक्थभाक् ।
यदेवास्य पिता दद्यात् तदेवास्य धनं भवेत् ॥ १५५ ॥

brāhmaṇakṣatriyaviśāṃ śūdrāputro na rikthabhāk |
yadevāsya pitā dadyāt tadevāsya dhanaṃ bhavet || 155 ||

Of the Brāhmaṇa, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya, the son born of a Śūdra wife is not an inheritor of property; his property shall consist of whatever his father may give to him.—(155)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The son born of the Śūdra wife of the twice-born persons is not an^‘inheritor of property.’—Is that so always?—No; ‘whatever his father may give to him’—i.e., the ‘tenth part’ which the father may have allotted to him—that shall be his property; and he obtains nothing more out of his paternal property.

In this connection, it has been declared by Śaṅkha—‘The son of the Śūdra wife is not entitled to inheritance;—his share consists of whatever his father gives him; at the time of partition, however, his brothers may give him a pair of bullocks in addition’;—this latter sentence forming a subsequent addition.

Others hold that what is said in the present text refers to the son of the unmarried Śūdra woman;—their argument being that there is nothing in the text indicative of the woman being one that has been duly married,—all that the term ‘Śūdra’ denotes is the particular caste. Hence, the meaning is that for the son of such a woman, ‘whatever the father gives him,’—that is, the provision that his father makes for his maintenance, or any share that he may have allotted to him for his maintenance during his life-time,—that shall be his property,—and his brothers need not give him anything. Says Gautama in the section dealing with the son of a Śūdra wife—‘As regards the sons of unmarried wives, they shall, if they are obedient, receive enough for subsistence, in the manner of pupils.’ (28—39)

According to the view of these men, however, the sons born of unmarried Kṣatriya and Vaiśya wives would be entitled to inheritance; and it is not known to what share these would be entitled.

It might be asserted that—“Their share shall be the same as that of the sons of married wives; since there is no word, either directly or indirectly indicative of the fact that the mothers shall be married wives. For all that is said is that—‘the legitimate son alone shall inherit the property’ (163); which distinctly mentions the ‘legitimate’ son, born of the legally married wife ↓ and the qualities of the ‘legitimate’ son can never be present in those born of unmarried wives, and further, it has been declared that ‘the son of the unauthorised woman...... is not entitled to any share’ (143). It might be urged that this last passage refers to the brothers wife; as it is only in connection with her that ‘authorisation’ has been sanctioned; so that when the text used the term ‘unauthorised’ it must be taken as referring to her alone.”

But in the present case also, there is dear indication of the fact that sons become entitled to ‘subsistence’ as soon as they are born (irrespectively of all other conditions). Hence, the term ‘unauthorised’ also refers in general to the wives of other persons. And all these sons (of married or unmarried wives) are entitled to subsistence.—(155)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

“The son of a Śūdra wife receives no share of his father’s estate in case the mother was not legally married’ (Medhātithi; ‘others,’ in Kullūka),—or in case he is destitute of good qualities (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda). According to Medhātithi and Nārāyaṇa ‘na rikthabhāk’ means ‘receives no larger share than one-tenth, except if the father has given more to him.”—Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 535), which adds the following notes:—‘According to Lakṣmīdhara the meaning is that ‘if the father gives anything to the son of his Śūdra wife, he should give only the tenth part of his property’;—Halāyudha and Pārijāta hold that the verse denies all share to the son of the Śūdra mother who is not a married wife.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 343); which adds that this refers only to such property as may be given by way of an affectionate present; and hence there is no incompatibility with those texts that deny to the said son any part of the landed property.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 735), which notes that this debarring from inheritance is meant for those cases where the son in question has already received some affectionate presents from the father;—or that the verse may be taken to mean that the son is not entitled to anything more than the tenth share of the property.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 45) as debarring from all inheritance the son of a śūdra mother, who is not a legally married wife;—and by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 219), which says that this denial of heritance refers only to those cases where the śūdra son has already got the tenth part of the father’s property, during the latter’s life-time, through his favour.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.149-157)

See Comparative notes for Verse 9.149.