Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1211. If the eldest or the youngest (brother) is deprived of his share, or if either of them dies, his share is not lost (to his immediate heirs). 212. His uterine brothers, having assembled together, shall equally divide it, and those brothers who were reunited (with him) and the uterine sisters. sambandhi and on Ragh.’s pitr:pitimahAdisambandhi. The latter refers also to the parallel passage of YA4g%. Anavdptam, ‘lost,’ means literally ‘not obtained (by his father).’ The translation of svayamargitam by ‘for it is self-acquired’ agrees with Nand.’s remark, svayamargitatvad ity artha#. N4r. adds, ‘ And thus it has been declared that property of the father which has not been acquired by him with exceedingly great trouble must be divided at the will of the sons, and to this refers the passage of Yag#. II, 121, “ Qver land acquired by the grandfather, &c.”’ Medh., whose commentary on this verse is very corrupt, seems likewise to have inferred from it that Manu admitted the equal ownership of a father and his sons in ancestral property (see also Colebrooke V, Digest XCI). But he combats the theory that sons may without a violation of their duty force the father to divide the ancestral property. 2to. Vi. XVIII, 41. 211. ‘Be deprived of his share,’ i. e. ‘because he has become an outcast or the like’ (Medh.), or ‘ because he has become an ascetic’ (Kull., Nand.), or ‘because he has emigrated’ (Nand.), or ‘ because he has become a eunuch after the (first) partition’ (N4r.). Na lupyate, ‘is not lost (to his immediate heirs), is explained by N4r. as follows, ‘His share, being formerly determined, is not lost, i.e. must not be divided by all the reunited coparceners and thus be made to disappear’ (see also the text of Brzhaspati, Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 2). ‘What is to be done with the share is shown in the next verse’ (Medh., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). 212. Vi, XVII, 17; Gaut. XXVIII, 21; Y4gz. II, 138. The IX, 214. INHERITANCE, 377 213. An eldest brother who through avarice may defraud the younger ones, shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest, shall not receive an (eldest son's additional) share, and shall be punished by the king. 214. All brothers who habitually commit forbidden acts, are unworthy of (a share of) the property, and the eldest shall not make (anything his) separate property without giving (an equivalent) to his younger brothers.
2214. All brothers who habitually commit forbidden acts, are unworthy of (a share of) the property, and the eldest shall not make (anything his) separate property without giving (an equivalent) to his younger brothers. meaning of the verse is: 1. according to Medh., with whose opinion the not very clear glosses of Kull. and Ragh. seem to agree, ‘the share of a deceased reunited brother goes first to the reunited brothers of the full blood and to such sisters of the full blood who are not married (aputra4, MSS. for aprattés4)—married sisters (pravritta#, MSS. for pradatté#) being excluded, because they belong to another family—next to not reunited brothers of the full blood, finally to reunited half-brothers;’ 2. according to Nar., ‘the share of a reunited brother devolves first on reunited brothers of the whole blood, next on reunited half-brothers, further on sisters of the full blood, then on the sons of brothers [of the whole blood?], and finally on sons of half-brothers [? tadabhave tvasodarady api].’ Nand. has the same order of heirs as Nar., but stops with ‘ the sisters of the whole blood.’ Nar.’s and Nand.’s explanation, which strictly follows the order of the enumeration in the text, agrees with Brzhaspati’s rule (Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 3), which likewise seems to be a paraphrase of Manu’s words. Kull., R4gh., and Nar. hold that the heirs, named in the verse, inherit only on failure of sons, wives, daughters, and parents. Nar. further remarks that some refer this verse and the preceding one to the division of the estate of one who died before partition, while others believe that it applies to the estate of a reunited brother only. 213. ‘Shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest,’ i.e. ‘shall not receive the honours, e.g. in saluting, due to the eldest brother’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). The insertion of the words ‘an eldest son’s additional’ before ‘ share,’ is made on the authority of Medh. and Kull. ‘Shall be punished,’ i.e. ‘ by reprimand (vigdandadhigdandabhy4m) or by a fine as the case may require’ (Medh.). 214. Ap. II, 14,15; Gaut. XXVIII, 40; Baudh. II, 3, 38. ‘Who 378 LAWS OF MANU. | IX, 215. 215. If undivided brethren, (living with their father,) together make an exertion (for gain), the father shall on no account give to them unequal shares (on a division of the estate). 216. But a son, born after partition, shall alone take the property of his father, or if any (of the other sons) be reunited with the (father), he shall share with them. 217. A mother shall obtain the inheritance of a son (who dies) without leaving issue, and, if the mother be dead, the paternal grandmother shall take the estate.
3217. A mother shall obtain the inheritance of a son (who dies) without leaving issue, and, if the mother be dead, the paternal grandmother shall take the estate. habitually commit forbidden acts,’ i.e. ‘who are addicted to gambling, drinking, and the like vices’ (Kull., Ragh.), or ‘ who, being Br&hmanas, follow despicable modes of living, such as tending cattle, serving SQdras and the like’ (Nar.). Na... . kurvita yautukam, ‘shall not make (anything his) separate property,’ means according to Nand. ‘shall not give a marriage-portion to his daughter without having made a division of the estate.’ The correct interpretation is, however, that given by the other commentators, according to which the eldest is not to appropriate anything out of the common stock for himself ‘without giving an equivalent to the others’ (kanish/Aebhyas tévad adattv, Nar.). 215. Y4g%. II, 120. Medh. remarks that this rule is a restriction of the general power of the father to make an unequal division (Y4gi. II, 116), and thinks that it is not necessary that all the brothers should have been associated in the same kind of work. According to him it is sufficient that all have exerted themselves to gain money. Na§r. and Nand. clearly express the contrary view (sahotthinam sambhfyavazigyadina vittarganam, Nar.). 216. Gaut. XXVIII, 29; Vi. XVII, 3; Y4gv. II, 122. ar7. Vi. XVII, 7; Yagn%. II, 135. Kull, Nar., and Nand. all three hold that the mother inherits only on failure of sons [grandsons and great-grandsons, Nand.], widows, and daughters. But they disagree with respect to the sequence of the next following heirs. Kull. holds that the mother and the father, whose right has been mentioned above, verse 185, follow next, inheriting conjointly, then brothers, afterwards brothers’ sons, and after IX, 219. INHERITANCE. 379 218. And if, after all the debts and assets have been duly distributed according to the rule, any (property) be afterwards discovered, one must. divide it equally. 219. A dress, a vehicle, ornaments, cooked food, water, and female (slaves), property destined for pious uses or sacrifices, and a pasture-ground, they declare to be indivisible. them the paternal grandmother. N§r. gives the following order : 1. mother, 2. father, 3. brothers, 4. brothers’ sons, 5. maternal grandmother. Medh. says that this verse has been explained formerly. The portion of his commentary where the explanation occurred, has, however, been lost ; see note on verse 187. 218. Y4gi. II, 126. Medh., Kull., and Nar. point out that on the division of property discovered after partition, the eldest, according to this text, receives no preferential share. N4r. adds that this rule applies also to debts, discovered after partition. Nar. inserts this verse after verse 219.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1211. If the eldest or the youngest (brother) is deprived of his share, or if either of them dies, his share is not lost (to his immediate heirs). 212. His uterine brothers, having assembled together, shall equally divide it, and those brothers who were reunited (with him) and the uterine sisters. sambandhi and on Ragh.’s pitr:pitimahAdisambandhi. The latter refers also to the parallel passage of YA4g%. Anavdptam, ‘lost,’ means literally ‘not obtained (by his father).’ The translation of svayamargitam by ‘for it is self-acquired’ agrees with Nand.’s remark, svayamargitatvad ity artha#. N4r. adds, ‘ And thus it has been declared that property of the father which has not been acquired by him with exceedingly great trouble must be divided at the will of the sons, and to this refers the passage of Yag#. II, 121, “ Qver land acquired by the grandfather, &c.”’ Medh., whose commentary on this verse is very corrupt, seems likewise to have inferred from it that Manu admitted the equal ownership of a father and his sons in ancestral property (see also Colebrooke V, Digest XCI). But he combats the theory that sons may without a violation of their duty force the father to divide the ancestral property. 2to. Vi. XVIII, 41. 211. ‘Be deprived of his share,’ i. e. ‘because he has become an outcast or the like’ (Medh.), or ‘ because he has become an ascetic’ (Kull., Nand.), or ‘because he has emigrated’ (Nand.), or ‘ because he has become a eunuch after the (first) partition’ (N4r.). Na lupyate, ‘is not lost (to his immediate heirs), is explained by N4r. as follows, ‘His share, being formerly determined, is not lost, i.e. must not be divided by all the reunited coparceners and thus be made to disappear’ (see also the text of Brzhaspati, Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 2). ‘What is to be done with the share is shown in the next verse’ (Medh., Nar., Ragh., Nand.). 212. Vi, XVII, 17; Gaut. XXVIII, 21; Y4gz. II, 138. The IX, 214. INHERITANCE, 377 213. An eldest brother who through avarice may defraud the younger ones, shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest, shall not receive an (eldest son's additional) share, and shall be punished by the king. 214. All brothers who habitually commit forbidden acts, are unworthy of (a share of) the property, and the eldest shall not make (anything his) separate property without giving (an equivalent) to his younger brothers.
2214. All brothers who habitually commit forbidden acts, are unworthy of (a share of) the property, and the eldest shall not make (anything his) separate property without giving (an equivalent) to his younger brothers. meaning of the verse is: 1. according to Medh., with whose opinion the not very clear glosses of Kull. and Ragh. seem to agree, ‘the share of a deceased reunited brother goes first to the reunited brothers of the full blood and to such sisters of the full blood who are not married (aputra4, MSS. for aprattés4)—married sisters (pravritta#, MSS. for pradatté#) being excluded, because they belong to another family—next to not reunited brothers of the full blood, finally to reunited half-brothers;’ 2. according to Nar., ‘the share of a reunited brother devolves first on reunited brothers of the whole blood, next on reunited half-brothers, further on sisters of the full blood, then on the sons of brothers [of the whole blood?], and finally on sons of half-brothers [? tadabhave tvasodarady api].’ Nand. has the same order of heirs as Nar., but stops with ‘ the sisters of the whole blood.’ Nar.’s and Nand.’s explanation, which strictly follows the order of the enumeration in the text, agrees with Brzhaspati’s rule (Colebrooke V, Digest CCCCVII, 3), which likewise seems to be a paraphrase of Manu’s words. Kull., R4gh., and Nar. hold that the heirs, named in the verse, inherit only on failure of sons, wives, daughters, and parents. Nar. further remarks that some refer this verse and the preceding one to the division of the estate of one who died before partition, while others believe that it applies to the estate of a reunited brother only. 213. ‘Shall no (longer hold the position of) the eldest,’ i.e. ‘shall not receive the honours, e.g. in saluting, due to the eldest brother’ (Medh., Kull., Nar., Ragh.). The insertion of the words ‘an eldest son’s additional’ before ‘ share,’ is made on the authority of Medh. and Kull. ‘Shall be punished,’ i.e. ‘ by reprimand (vigdandadhigdandabhy4m) or by a fine as the case may require’ (Medh.). 214. Ap. II, 14,15; Gaut. XXVIII, 40; Baudh. II, 3, 38. ‘Who 378 LAWS OF MANU. | IX, 215. 215. If undivided brethren, (living with their father,) together make an exertion (for gain), the father shall on no account give to them unequal shares (on a division of the estate). 216. But a son, born after partition, shall alone take the property of his father, or if any (of the other sons) be reunited with the (father), he shall share with them. 217. A mother shall obtain the inheritance of a son (who dies) without leaving issue, and, if the mother be dead, the paternal grandmother shall take the estate.
3217. A mother shall obtain the inheritance of a son (who dies) without leaving issue, and, if the mother be dead, the paternal grandmother shall take the estate. habitually commit forbidden acts,’ i.e. ‘who are addicted to gambling, drinking, and the like vices’ (Kull., Ragh.), or ‘ who, being Br&hmanas, follow despicable modes of living, such as tending cattle, serving SQdras and the like’ (Nar.). Na... . kurvita yautukam, ‘shall not make (anything his) separate property,’ means according to Nand. ‘shall not give a marriage-portion to his daughter without having made a division of the estate.’ The correct interpretation is, however, that given by the other commentators, according to which the eldest is not to appropriate anything out of the common stock for himself ‘without giving an equivalent to the others’ (kanish/Aebhyas tévad adattv, Nar.). 215. Y4g%. II, 120. Medh. remarks that this rule is a restriction of the general power of the father to make an unequal division (Y4gi. II, 116), and thinks that it is not necessary that all the brothers should have been associated in the same kind of work. According to him it is sufficient that all have exerted themselves to gain money. Na§r. and Nand. clearly express the contrary view (sahotthinam sambhfyavazigyadina vittarganam, Nar.). 216. Gaut. XXVIII, 29; Vi. XVII, 3; Y4gv. II, 122. ar7. Vi. XVII, 7; Yagn%. II, 135. Kull, Nar., and Nand. all three hold that the mother inherits only on failure of sons [grandsons and great-grandsons, Nand.], widows, and daughters. But they disagree with respect to the sequence of the next following heirs. Kull. holds that the mother and the father, whose right has been mentioned above, verse 185, follow next, inheriting conjointly, then brothers, afterwards brothers’ sons, and after IX, 219. INHERITANCE. 379 218. And if, after all the debts and assets have been duly distributed according to the rule, any (property) be afterwards discovered, one must. divide it equally. 219. A dress, a vehicle, ornaments, cooked food, water, and female (slaves), property destined for pious uses or sacrifices, and a pasture-ground, they declare to be indivisible. them the paternal grandmother. N§r. gives the following order : 1. mother, 2. father, 3. brothers, 4. brothers’ sons, 5. maternal grandmother. Medh. says that this verse has been explained formerly. The portion of his commentary where the explanation occurred, has, however, been lost ; see note on verse 187. 218. Y4gi. II, 126. Medh., Kull., and Nar. point out that on the division of property discovered after partition, the eldest, according to this text, receives no preferential share. N4r. adds that this rule applies also to debts, discovered after partition. Nar. inserts this verse after verse 219.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.