Verse 9.216

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

ऊर्ध्वं विभागात्जातस्तु पित्र्यमेव हरेद् धनम् ।
संसृष्टास्तेन वा ये स्युर्विभजेत स तैः सह ॥ २१६ ॥

ūrdhvaṃ vibhāgātjātastu pitryameva hared dhanam |
saṃsṛṣṭāstena vā ye syurvibhajeta sa taiḥ saha || 216 ||

If a son is born after partition, he shall receive the property of the father alone; or if any other sons be reunited, he would share it with them.—(216)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

After the partition has been made,—in which the father has taken two shares—if a son happens to be born, he shall receive these two shares, during the father’s life-time, if the father wishes it so, or after the death of the father, and his brothers shall not complain—‘why should he have two shares?’ If, however, such is not father’s wish, then he shall be assigned by the others a share equal to their own.

If some of the sons become re-united with the father, after the partition has been made, then the father’s share shall go to them; and the additional property arising therefrom shall be assigned by them as the share of the other brothers. This property thus accrues to the son united with the father; also after the father’s death, he receives his share out of that same property (?),—in accordance with what has been said above under 210.

As regards the sisters, they are not entitled to any share until they have borne a child,—as declared by Vaśiṣṭha.—(216)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 538), which adds the following explanation.—If a son is born to the father after partition of the property between himself and his sons, then on the death of the father that son shall inherit the entire share of the father; but during his father’s lifetime he shall be entitled to only a part of the father’s property;—it adds that the particle ‘eva’ has been added with a view to emphasise that the new-born son would not be entitled to any part of the share of the divided brothers.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 340), which explains ‘pītryam’ as ‘belonging to the parents—in Madanapārijāta (p. 655), which also adds the same explanation of ‘pitryam’;—in Aparārka (p. 729), which adds the explanation that ‘if a son is born after partition has been made he shall take only his father’s, not the brothers’ property, and if there be no brothers, he shall share the father’s property with those who may have lived jointly with his father’;—in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 46);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (Calcutta, p. 159), which remarks that the first half of the verse having definitely made the new-born son the sole heir to the father’s property, his joint brothers, mentioned in the second half, could be entitled to it only on the death of that new-born son;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra 35a):—in Smṛtisāroddharā (p. 332);—and by Jīmātavāhana (Dāyabhāga, p. 203), which explains the meaning to be as follows—‘If the father, after having divided his property among his sons and taken his own share, obtains another son, then the share taken by the father devolves upon this son, and if the father had been living with some other sons, then the new-born son shall receive his share out of the share of all those with whom the father may have been living.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (28.29).—‘A son horn after partition takes exclusively the property of his father.’

Viṣṇu (17.3).—‘Sons who have separated from their father should give a share to the brother who is born after the partition.’

Yājñavalkya (2.122).—‘If a son is born of a wife of equal caste, after the property has been partitioned (among the sons), ho is entitled to the share of his father; or he may obtain his share from any such property as may he discovered after the said partition, after it has been cleared of all accounts of income and expenditure.’

Bṛhsapati (25.17, 20).—‘When step-brothers horn of different mothers, or uterine brothers, have come to a division with their father, brothers born after that shall take their father’s share. In such cases the son horn before partition has no right to the father’s share; nor can a brother’s property be claimed by one born after partition; whatever shall have been acquired by the father, after he has come to a partition with his sons, all that belongs to the son born after partition; those born before it have no right to it. In regard to the property, as also debts, gifts, pledges and purchases, the father and the divided sons have no concern with one another; except in regard to impurity (due to births and deaths) and the funeral oblations.’