Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

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

विभक्ताः सह जीवन्तो विभजेरन् पुनर्यदि ।
समस्तत्र विभागः स्याज् ज्यैष्ठ्यं तत्र न विद्यते ॥ २१० ॥

vibhaktāḥ saha jīvanto vibhajeran punaryadi |
samastatra vibhāgaḥ syāj jyaiṣṭhyaṃ tatra na vidyate || 210 ||

If brothers, living together, after having divided once, happen to make a second partition, the division in that case shall be equal; in such cases there is no ‘primogeniture.’—(210)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The meaning of the verse is quite clear. It is meant to forbid the ‘preferential share’ which would appear to be the standing rule in connection with all partition; specially in view of what has been said above (205) regarding ‘the property being not acquired by the father’(205). It is only out of all kinds of property acquired by the father that there is to be a ‘preferential share.’ In the present case, however, the property might in a sense be regarded as ‘acquired by the father,’ and hence, the possibility of the ‘preferential share,’—which, therefore, has had to be expressly denied.—(210)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.139);—in Madanapārijāta (p. 678), to the effect that in the case noted there is no unequal division;—in Aparārka (p. 748), which adds that this prohibits only that unequal division, which is in the form of additional shares for the eldest brother,—and not other kinds of unequal division; so that each brother obtains, on partition, that part of the property which was his when they entered into joint life.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 601), which adds the following notes:—‘Saha jīvantaḥ’, living after joining together,—‘samastatra vibhāgaḥ’, i.e., there is to be no additional share for the eldest, and so forth.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 65), which mentions two opinions—one, is that which has been set forth in Aparārka, and another that there is to be absolutely equal division all round;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 41b);—by Jīmūtavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 342), which says that the equal partition is meant for brothers of the same caste as the father;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 210a), which explains the implication of the last clause to be that there is no unequal division due to seniority, but there is unequal division on other grounds.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (18.41).—‘If brothers, who after a previous division of the estate, live again together as parceners, should make a second partition, the shares must be equal in that case; and the eldest has no right to an additional share.’

Yājñavalkya (2.120).—‘When a property has been acquired by several brothers in common, it shall be shared equally by all.’

Bṛhaspati (25.73).—‘When brothers formerly divided are again living together through affection, and arrange a second partition, the right of primogeniture does not accrue in that case.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: