Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1So when one of the sharers has no issue it shall go to the rest (after the death) of those who are childless. *25. If among several brothers one childless should die or become a religious ascetic, the others shall divide his property, excepting the Stridhana. mother’ (Kshetrika). The ‘son of two fathers’ is no doubt one procreated by Niyoga on the wife of one impotent, &c. It is not equally clear why he is to obtain one half only of the property left by his two fathers, as he is elsewhere declared to succeed to both. According to the Ratn4kara, this rule ‘ relates to the case where the natural father has a son begotten in lawful wedlock, and the husband of the mother also has by some means (katham&it) obtained male issue by himself begotten.’ See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 4, 242.— YVAg#avalkya II,127; Manu IX, 145,190; Baudh4yana II, 3, 18, 19. 24. For several other interpretations of this difficult text, see Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 8, 433. It has to be observed, however, that the reading translated here differs from the reading translated by Colebrooke. 25, 26. The fact that the widow is invested with a claim to maintenance merely under this text, whereas the leading texts of Y4gfavalkya and Vishnu constitute her heir to the property of a husband who has died without leaving male issue, has caused some difficulty to the commentators. Thus Madana says that this text must be held applicable to the widow of an undivided or reunited coparcener only, who is given a mere claim to maintenance by all writers of the Mitéksharé school. The writers of the Bengal school, on the other hand, recognise the widow's right of inheritance in the case of undivided coparceners even. It appears, however, from the order of heirs given in 49-51, that Narada does not make the widow an heir in any case. 25. Manu IX, 212; YAg#avalkya I, 138; Vishau XVII, 17; Gautama XVIII, 21. 02 196 NARADA, XIII, 26. *26. They shall make provision for his women till they die, in case they remain faithful to the bed of their husband. Should the women not (remain chaste), they must cut off that allowance. *27, If he has left a daughter, her father’s share is destined for her maintenance. They shall maintain her up to the time of her marriage; afterwards let her husband keep her. *28. After the death of her lord, the relations of her husband shall be the guardians of a woman who has no son. They shall have full authority to control her, to regulate her mode of life, and to maintain her. *29. When the husband’s family is extinct, or contains no male, or when it is reduced to poverty, or when no one related to it within the degree of a Sapizda is left, the father’s relations shall be the guardians of a woman. * 30. It is through independence that women go 26. Yag#avalkya II, 142.
2When the husband’s family is extinct, or contains no male, or when it is reduced to poverty, or when no one related to it within the degree of a Sapizda is left, the father’s relations shall be the guardians of a woman. * 30. It is through independence that women go 26. Yag#avalkya II, 142. 24. ‘They shall maintain her,’ literally ‘they shall give her a share.’ See par. 13, where a share is allotted to an unmarried sister. The maintenance of the daughter includes, no doubt, the obligation to defray the expense of her marriage. Yag#avalkya II, 141. 28. All the commentators declare that the right of guardianship goes in the order of proximity. ‘Thus, without (her guardian’s) consent, she may not give away anything to any person; nor indulge herself in matters of shape, taste, smell, and the like ; and if the means of subsistence be wanting he must provide her maintenance. Gagannatha. See Colebrooke’s Digest, IV, 1, 13. 29. The Nepalese MS. and the commentaries insert the following text here: *‘If both families are extinct, the king is declared to be the protector of a woman ; he shall provide for her and punish her when she has swerved from the path of duty.’ 30, 31. Vasishsha V, 1, 2; Baudhdyana II, 3, 44, 45; Gautama XIII, 33. INHERITANCE. 197 to ruin, though born in a noble family. Therefore the Lord of creatures has assigned a dependent condition to them. *31. The father protects her during her infancy, the husband protects her when she is grown up, and the sons (protect her) in her old age. A woman is unfit to enjoy independence. * 32. What is left (of the father’s property), when the father’s obligations have been discharged, and when the father’s debts have been paid, shall be divided by the brothers, in order that the father may not continue a debtor. * 33. For those (brothers), for whom the initiatory ceremonies have not been duly performed by their father, they must be performed by the (other) brothers, (defraying the expense) from the paternal property. XVII, 1; Manu IX, 3; V,148; Yag@avalkya I, 85 ; Vishnu XXV, 12, 13. 30. ‘They go to ruin,’ i.e. they are guilty of disloyalty and other offences; thus, because they do not know what is legal for those who live exactly according to sacred ordinances, and because they cannot be instructed, they would violate the duties of their class and the like. Gagannatha. See Colebrooke’s Digest, IV, 1, 4. 32. The term pitrzdayebhyo, ‘ when the father’s obligations have been discharged,’ is differently explained by different commentators. Thus Varadaraga (Burnell’s Vyavaharanirnaya, p. 18) says it denotes the father’s funeral rites and the like. A4yuta, as quoted in Colebrooke’s Dayabhéga I, 47, note, refers it to sums of which payment has been promised by the father. Manu VIII, 166; IX, 104; Baudhdyana II, 3, 8; Gautama XXVIII, 1; Y4gfavalkya II, 117. Read dattvarnam in the text.
3A4yuta, as quoted in Colebrooke’s Dayabhéga I, 47, note, refers it to sums of which payment has been promised by the father. Manu VIII, 166; IX, 104; Baudhdyana II, 3, 8; Gautama XXVIII, 1; Y4gfavalkya II, 117. Read dattvarnam in the text. 33. There appears to be some doubt as to what is meant here by the term samskara, ‘initiatory or sacramental ceremonies,’ some commentators including the ceremony of marriage in that term, and others declaring the initiatory ceremonies to terminate with the investiture with the sacred thread. Y4g#avalkya II, 124. 198 NARADA. XIII, 34. *34. Or, no paternal wealth being left, the initiatory ceremonies must be invariably performed for their brothers by those previously initiated contributing (the required) funds from their own portions. *35. One who, being authorized to look after the affairs of the family, charges himself with the management (of the family property), shall be supported by his brothers with (presents of) food, clothing, and vehicles. * 36. When the fact of a legal partition should be called into question, the decision of the dispute (which has arisen) among the sharers shall be founded on (the testimony of) kinsmen, the written deed recording the division of the estate, and the separate transaction of business. *37. Among unseparated brothers, the performance of religious duties is single. When they have come to a partition, they have to perform their religious duties each for himself. 35. Some commentators explain this text as having reference to one who generously declines to take his share at the time of partition. His share shall be made up afterwards by the other brothers contributing severally a portion of their shares. However, there seems to be more foundation for the opinion of those commentators who interpret this text as ordaining the allotment of a preferential share or the presentation of special gifts to the manager of the family property. See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 2, 108. 36. The commentators observe that the contest here referred to does not turn on the mode but on the fact of partition. See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 6, 381. The business here referred to consists of agriculture and the like acts, according to the Mitékshara. Yagfiavalkya II, 149. 37. The term ‘religious duties,’ according to the Mitakshar4, relates principally to the five Mah4yagfas, ‘ great sacrifices’ or ‘sacraments.’ Before division they are performed by one brother, generally the eldest brother, as representative of the rest. Manu IX, 111; Gautama XXVIII, 4. XIII, 42. INHERITANCE. 199 *38, Giving, receiving, cattle, food, houses, fields, and servants must be regarded as separate among divided brothers, and so must cooking, religious duties, income, and expenditure (be kept separate for each of them). *39. (The acts of) giving evidence, of becoming a surety, of giving, and of taking, may be mutually performed by divided brothers, but not by unseparated ones.
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.
1So when one of the sharers has no issue it shall go to the rest (after the death) of those who are childless. *25. If among several brothers one childless should die or become a religious ascetic, the others shall divide his property, excepting the Stridhana. mother’ (Kshetrika). The ‘son of two fathers’ is no doubt one procreated by Niyoga on the wife of one impotent, &c. It is not equally clear why he is to obtain one half only of the property left by his two fathers, as he is elsewhere declared to succeed to both. According to the Ratn4kara, this rule ‘ relates to the case where the natural father has a son begotten in lawful wedlock, and the husband of the mother also has by some means (katham&it) obtained male issue by himself begotten.’ See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 4, 242.— YVAg#avalkya II,127; Manu IX, 145,190; Baudh4yana II, 3, 18, 19. 24. For several other interpretations of this difficult text, see Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 8, 433. It has to be observed, however, that the reading translated here differs from the reading translated by Colebrooke. 25, 26. The fact that the widow is invested with a claim to maintenance merely under this text, whereas the leading texts of Y4gfavalkya and Vishnu constitute her heir to the property of a husband who has died without leaving male issue, has caused some difficulty to the commentators. Thus Madana says that this text must be held applicable to the widow of an undivided or reunited coparcener only, who is given a mere claim to maintenance by all writers of the Mitéksharé school. The writers of the Bengal school, on the other hand, recognise the widow's right of inheritance in the case of undivided coparceners even. It appears, however, from the order of heirs given in 49-51, that Narada does not make the widow an heir in any case. 25. Manu IX, 212; YAg#avalkya I, 138; Vishau XVII, 17; Gautama XVIII, 21. 02 196 NARADA, XIII, 26. *26. They shall make provision for his women till they die, in case they remain faithful to the bed of their husband. Should the women not (remain chaste), they must cut off that allowance. *27, If he has left a daughter, her father’s share is destined for her maintenance. They shall maintain her up to the time of her marriage; afterwards let her husband keep her. *28. After the death of her lord, the relations of her husband shall be the guardians of a woman who has no son. They shall have full authority to control her, to regulate her mode of life, and to maintain her. *29. When the husband’s family is extinct, or contains no male, or when it is reduced to poverty, or when no one related to it within the degree of a Sapizda is left, the father’s relations shall be the guardians of a woman. * 30. It is through independence that women go 26. Yag#avalkya II, 142.
2When the husband’s family is extinct, or contains no male, or when it is reduced to poverty, or when no one related to it within the degree of a Sapizda is left, the father’s relations shall be the guardians of a woman. * 30. It is through independence that women go 26. Yag#avalkya II, 142. 24. ‘They shall maintain her,’ literally ‘they shall give her a share.’ See par. 13, where a share is allotted to an unmarried sister. The maintenance of the daughter includes, no doubt, the obligation to defray the expense of her marriage. Yag#avalkya II, 141. 28. All the commentators declare that the right of guardianship goes in the order of proximity. ‘Thus, without (her guardian’s) consent, she may not give away anything to any person; nor indulge herself in matters of shape, taste, smell, and the like ; and if the means of subsistence be wanting he must provide her maintenance. Gagannatha. See Colebrooke’s Digest, IV, 1, 13. 29. The Nepalese MS. and the commentaries insert the following text here: *‘If both families are extinct, the king is declared to be the protector of a woman ; he shall provide for her and punish her when she has swerved from the path of duty.’ 30, 31. Vasishsha V, 1, 2; Baudhdyana II, 3, 44, 45; Gautama XIII, 33. INHERITANCE. 197 to ruin, though born in a noble family. Therefore the Lord of creatures has assigned a dependent condition to them. *31. The father protects her during her infancy, the husband protects her when she is grown up, and the sons (protect her) in her old age. A woman is unfit to enjoy independence. * 32. What is left (of the father’s property), when the father’s obligations have been discharged, and when the father’s debts have been paid, shall be divided by the brothers, in order that the father may not continue a debtor. * 33. For those (brothers), for whom the initiatory ceremonies have not been duly performed by their father, they must be performed by the (other) brothers, (defraying the expense) from the paternal property. XVII, 1; Manu IX, 3; V,148; Yag@avalkya I, 85 ; Vishnu XXV, 12, 13. 30. ‘They go to ruin,’ i.e. they are guilty of disloyalty and other offences; thus, because they do not know what is legal for those who live exactly according to sacred ordinances, and because they cannot be instructed, they would violate the duties of their class and the like. Gagannatha. See Colebrooke’s Digest, IV, 1, 4. 32. The term pitrzdayebhyo, ‘ when the father’s obligations have been discharged,’ is differently explained by different commentators. Thus Varadaraga (Burnell’s Vyavaharanirnaya, p. 18) says it denotes the father’s funeral rites and the like. A4yuta, as quoted in Colebrooke’s Dayabhéga I, 47, note, refers it to sums of which payment has been promised by the father. Manu VIII, 166; IX, 104; Baudhdyana II, 3, 8; Gautama XXVIII, 1; Y4gfavalkya II, 117. Read dattvarnam in the text.
3A4yuta, as quoted in Colebrooke’s Dayabhéga I, 47, note, refers it to sums of which payment has been promised by the father. Manu VIII, 166; IX, 104; Baudhdyana II, 3, 8; Gautama XXVIII, 1; Y4gfavalkya II, 117. Read dattvarnam in the text. 33. There appears to be some doubt as to what is meant here by the term samskara, ‘initiatory or sacramental ceremonies,’ some commentators including the ceremony of marriage in that term, and others declaring the initiatory ceremonies to terminate with the investiture with the sacred thread. Y4g#avalkya II, 124. 198 NARADA. XIII, 34. *34. Or, no paternal wealth being left, the initiatory ceremonies must be invariably performed for their brothers by those previously initiated contributing (the required) funds from their own portions. *35. One who, being authorized to look after the affairs of the family, charges himself with the management (of the family property), shall be supported by his brothers with (presents of) food, clothing, and vehicles. * 36. When the fact of a legal partition should be called into question, the decision of the dispute (which has arisen) among the sharers shall be founded on (the testimony of) kinsmen, the written deed recording the division of the estate, and the separate transaction of business. *37. Among unseparated brothers, the performance of religious duties is single. When they have come to a partition, they have to perform their religious duties each for himself. 35. Some commentators explain this text as having reference to one who generously declines to take his share at the time of partition. His share shall be made up afterwards by the other brothers contributing severally a portion of their shares. However, there seems to be more foundation for the opinion of those commentators who interpret this text as ordaining the allotment of a preferential share or the presentation of special gifts to the manager of the family property. See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 2, 108. 36. The commentators observe that the contest here referred to does not turn on the mode but on the fact of partition. See Colebrooke’s Digest, V, 6, 381. The business here referred to consists of agriculture and the like acts, according to the Mitékshara. Yagfiavalkya II, 149. 37. The term ‘religious duties,’ according to the Mitakshar4, relates principally to the five Mah4yagfas, ‘ great sacrifices’ or ‘sacraments.’ Before division they are performed by one brother, generally the eldest brother, as representative of the rest. Manu IX, 111; Gautama XXVIII, 4. XIII, 42. INHERITANCE. 199 *38, Giving, receiving, cattle, food, houses, fields, and servants must be regarded as separate among divided brothers, and so must cooking, religious duties, income, and expenditure (be kept separate for each of them). *39. (The acts of) giving evidence, of becoming a surety, of giving, and of taking, may be mutually performed by divided brothers, but not by unseparated ones.
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.