DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

LAWS OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA

SUBJECT

HISTORY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

DR. VISHWACHANDRA NATH MADASU

Name of the Candidate- Aishani Chakraborty

Roll No. – 19LLB118

Semester - 1

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-

I would like to thank Dr.Vishwachandra Nath Madasu Sir for giving me an opportunity for
deeply studying about ancient India. This project is a result of dedicated effort. It gives me
immense pleasure to prepare this project report on “Laws of Inheritance in Ancient India”.

My deepest thanks to our Lecturer Madasu Sir , the guide of the project for
guiding and correcting various documents with attention and care. I thank him for consultative
help and constructive suggestion in this project. I would also like to thank my parents and my
colleagues who have helped us for making the project a successful one.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 2

CONTENTS-

1.COVER PAGE

2. GRAMMERLY REPORT

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

4.PROJECT SUMMARY

5.CONTENTS

6.OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

7.SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF STUDY

8. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

9. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

10. LITERATURE REVIEW

11. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

12. HYPOTHESIS

13. BODY OF THE PROJECT

14. BIBLIOGRAPHY

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 3

CONTENTS UNDER THE BODY OF THE PROJECT-

1. Introduction
2. Inheritance and ancestral worship
3. Origin of private property and laws of inheritance
4. Law of inheritance in dharmasutras
5. Mitakshara on inheritance
6. Introduction in ancient India
7. Succession to the Property of a Sonless Person
8. Yajnavalkya’s Scheme of Inheritence
9. The Succession of the Property of a Hermit
10. Women’s right on her Stridhana
11. According to Kautilya’s Arthashastra
12. Division of Inheritance
13. Special shares in Inheritance

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 4

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY-

Herein the researcher through this project is studying the laws of inheritance prevailing during
1500 BC to 600 BC.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

The researcher limits the scope of the study only up to the various religious and social texts written
during that time period.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY-

This research helps us to know more about History writing and laws of inheritance in ancient India.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE-

The literature review focuses on Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras. Various Research Papers
authored under the same scope have taken into consideration. Though studies have been done but
comprehensive study on this topic keeping in mind the ancient texts during this time has not been
have not be done. Thus Research Gaps have been identified. To meet those Research Gaps
objectives have been framed.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY-

This is a doctrinal research, which is based on the materials collected from different journals, books
etc.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 5

BODY OF THE PROJECT-

INTRODUCTION

Succession is basically succeeding the property of a deceased person. It is majorly of two kinds:
Testate and Intestate. Testate succession is under a testament or will. Intestate succession is called
inheritance. This is the general law. Be that as it may, under the ancient Hindu law, the position is
unique. There is no any reference to the organization of will in Dharmasastra writings. Be that as
it may, at the same time so as to avoid a scramble among the relations to get at the properties of
the perished, the antiquated law suppliers have laid down standards and laws recommending how
the property of the perished is to be circulated among his relations. The connection on whom the
property of the perished in this manner lapses is called his beneficiary. The procedure of such
devolution of property is called Intestate progression or legacy.

Despite the fact that the foundation of private property came into being, in ancient India it stayed
chained in issues of free transferability. The property was held perpetually by the individuals from
joint family and separate acquisitions were unimportant. The innate ideas of the public culture kept
on affecting the progression laws thus, progression was first kept to agnates (Sapindas) or Sagotras
as it were. In the default of a male issue, and the selected little girl and her child, the closer relatives
in the Gotra or family succeeded. All the individuals dropped from one regular stock in the male
line comprise of one Gotra or Family. In ancient Indian law, such family association or cormection
was the whole class from which a progression or a beneficiary was inferred. Gautama expands this
not just to the individuals from a customary agnatic Gotra however to the individuals from a Rsi
Gotra too.

Inheritance and Ancestral Worship

In ancient Hindu law, the privilege of inheritance was intently associated with tribal love. Each
part of Hindu law depended on the way of thinking of the three obligations. Concurring to this way
of thinking a man is bom with a three-overlay commitment - commitment to Gods (Devarna),
commitment to sages (Rsirna) what's more, commitment to manes (Pitrna). The commitment to
the manes or on the other hand predecessors is required to be released by offering Sraddhas to
them. The child, the grandson and the-incredible grandson were considered as capable to play out

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 6

this ritual. The individuals who are equipped to do this are specialists to acquire the bequest of the
expired progenitors. The familial love in away is profound inheritance. This otherworldly
inheritance is the premise of the worldly inheritance, that of the home.

Origin of Private Property and Law of Inheritance

Reinforcing of private property gives off an impression of being one of the goals of the law of
inheritance in Dharmasastra writings. The Rigvedic culture all in all was innate, peaceful, semi-
itinerant what's more, to a great extent populist. In the most punctual Vedic age the mobile property
was unquestionably more significant than relentless property. Versatile property comprised of
essentially dairy cattle, weapons and belongings like pots, vessels and property garments and so
forth. The steady property included land and houses. These properties, particularly the steers, had
a place with the innate units called 'Gana' and 'Parisad': This is obviously communicated in a few
Mantras of Rigveda. The Brahmana may obtain property, including land, through blessing and as
conciliatory charge. A Ksatriya can obtain it through triumph, a Vaisya through farming and cows
raising and Sudra through help. So as to reinforce the rights to get and hold private properties,
guidelines and guidelines were detailed that are seen classified in the writings called
Dharmasastras.

Inheritance and Ancestral Worship

In ancient Hindu law, the privilege of inheritance was intently associated with tribal love. Each
part of Hindu law depended on the way of thinking of the three obligations. Concurring to this way
of thinking a man is bom with a three-overlay commitment - commitment to Gods (Devarna),
commitment to sages (Rsirna) furthermore, commitment to manes (Pitrna). The commitment to
the manes or then again predecessors is required to be released by offering Sraddhas to them. The
child, the grandson and the-incredible grandson were considered as capable to play out this custom.
The individuals who are skilled to do this are specialists to acquire the domain of the perished
progenitors. The tribal love in away is profound inheritance. This otherworldly inheritance is the
premise of the fleeting inheritance, that of the home.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 7

The Law of Inheritance in Dharmasutras

Dharmasutras are the earliest codified texts accessible in common law. Among the different
subjects they manage, law of inheritance is very important considering its social significance.
Despite the fact that these writings don't delve into the unobtrusive subtleties of the subject as in
the later Smrti writings, some broad perceptions with respect to inheritance of property are found
in them. Every one of these writings weight on the point that the above all else beneficiary is the
Aurasa or genuine child. On the off chance that there is no real child, the domain will go to the
subsidiary children. Without these two sorts of successors, the Dharmasutras state that the closest
beneficiary around then would take the property.

The explanation is that all children who live uprightly are qualified for acquire. He should, actually,
exclude a child who uses the riches in corrupt manners, regardless of whether he is the oldest.

Gautama states that the estate of a man who dies without any sons is shared by his relatives through
ancestry, lineage, or a common seer and
by his spouse.

A natural child, a child conceived on the spouse, an adopted child, a created child, a child
conceived covertly, and a child received after being adopted by his birth parents—these share in
the inheritance. A child of an unmarried lady, a child destined to a lady who was pregnant at
marriage, a child destined to a re-wedded lady, a child destined to a delegated girl, a child who
hands himself over for reception, and an acquired child— these offer in the lineage and get one-
quarter of the bequest without the children in the rundown starting with the common child. A child
destined to a Brahmin by a Ksatriya spouse, in the event that he occurs to be the oldest and has
great characteristics, gets an equivalent portion of the domain, 36 however he isn't qualified for
the extra offer held for the oldest child. When a Brahmin has children by Ksatriya and Vaisya
spouses, the division happens in the equivalent route as between children by Brahmin and Ksatriya
spouses;so too at the point when a Ksatriya has such children.When his dad bites the dust without

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 8

beneficiaries, even a child by a Sudra spouse may get an offer adequate to look after himself, on
the off chance that he has been devoted like a student. 1

Apastamba states that if there are no sons, the closest relative belonging to the same ancestry
takes the property. In the absence of relatives belonging to the same ancestry, his teacher should
take it. If there is no teacher, his student should take the inheritance and use it to perform rituals
for the benefit of the deceased. Alternatively, the daughter has the right to take it. If all of the
options are exhausted then the king should the estate.
After giving the eldest son a choice portion of his wealth, he should divide his estate among his
sons in equal proportions, while still alive.
According to some the entire estate is inherited by the eldest son.

As indicated by Baudhayana, without different beneficiaries the domain goes to the relatives
having a place with the equivalent ancestry;in their nonattendance, to relatives having a place with
a similar family line; in their nonappearance, the educator who had been similar to a dad to the
expired, or an understudy or directing minister of the perished may take it. In default of all these,
the King should take it. He ought to give that property to the people profoundly versed in the three
Vedas. Without various recipients, the endowment goes to the relatives having a spot with a
comparative family line in their nonappearance, to the relatives having a spot with a comparative
family line in their nonattendance, the teacher who had been like a dad to the died, or an understudy
or managing clergyman of the died may take it; and in their nonattendance, the ruler—anyway let
him give that property to individuals significantly versed in the three Vedas. The ruler himself, in
any case, should never fitting the property of Brahmins.

Vasistha is of conclusion that without a beneficiary having a place with the initial six kinds of
children - Aurasa, Ksetraja, Putrikaputra, Paunarbhave, Kanina and Gudhotpanna – individuals
having a place with a similar family line or those replacing children should partition the domain
of the perished. Without these, the instructor and the inhabitant student should take it; and in their
nonappearance, the ruler.

1
Laws of Inheritence in Ancient India

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 9

In the wake of embracing a child iof a characteristic child is brought into the world the received
one acquires one fourth of the domain , except if he is given to religiousity.

Mitaksara on inheritance
The Mitākṣarā is a vivṛti (lawful discourse) on the Yajnavalkya Smriti best known for its
hypothesis of "inheritance by birth." It was composed by Vijñāneśvara, a researcher in the Western
Chalukya court in the late eleventh and early twelfth century. Alongside the Dāyabhāga, it was
viewed as one of the fundamental experts on Hindu Law from the time the British started regulating
laws in India. The whole Mitākṣarā, alongside the content of the Yājñavalkya-smṝti, is around 492
intently printed pages. Vijiianesvara characterizes 'Daya' or inheritance as that riches which turns
into the property of another, exclusively because of connection to
the proprietor .
In Mitaksara framework, children, grandsons and greatgrandsonsacquire directly in hereditary
property by birth. In thecase of siblings, nephews, father and so on they become qualified for the
property by survivorship. This precept is called 'Janmasvatvavada' or the hypothesis of possession
emerging on birth. As indicated by Jimutavahana, child, grandsons and extraordinary grandsons
don't get any privilege of possession by birth.

INTRODUCTION TO ANCIENT INDIA

In ancient India, joint family framework likewise was an significant viewpoint that administered
the law of inheritance. In such a framework father was the head and authority of the family. The
profound established confidence in the salvation of the spirit through the child gave undue
significance to him and along these lines he was considered the as a matter of first importance
beneficiary of his dad's property. In the nonattendance of an 'Aurasa' child, as indicated by the
Dharmasastra law, various kinds of backup children were acknowledged as beneficiaries. While
recommending the laws and guidelines in regards to inheritance, Manu gives the meaning of
different sorts of children, which are talked about beneath.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 10

Twelve Kinds of Sons

“For the most part, twelve kinds of children are seen referenced by the vast majority of the ancient
lawgivers. They are
1) Aurasa,
2) Putrika -putra,
3) Ksetraja,
4) Dattaka,
5) Krtrima,
6) Gudhotpanna,
7) Apaviddha,
8) Kanina,
9) Sahodhaja,
10) Krita,
11) Paunarbhava and
12) Svayamdatta

Manu, Baudhayana and Vasistha named a thirteenth one, called Sudra”.2

Aurasa or the Legitimate Son

The real or Aurasa is a child generated by a man in his very own married spouse.
Manu demands that here the married spouse ought to be of a similar station. Practically every one
of the lawgivers acknowledge this view. Nonetheless, some medieval scholars like Apararka and
Vijiianesvara hold that child conceived in the Anuloma request of marriage, not in a similar cast
in particular, can likewise be considered as Aurasa. While remarking on Yajnavalkya's entry.

Putrikaputra
The term Putrikaputra has two significance. In the principal sense it is broken up as a
Karmadharaya compound. At that point it implies a selected little girl. She is then called 'Putrika'

2
supra,1

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 11

and treated as a child. In the second sense it is disintegrated as a Tatpurusa compound. In this case,
the child born to the girl is 'Putrikaputra'. Manu acknowledges the subsequent importance.

Ksetraja
The term 'ksetra' abstractly implies a field. In Smrti writing as per the renowned Bijaksetranyaya,
it speaks to a spouse. There lady is considered as field and man as seed. In this manner, Ksetraja
implies a child bom through the act of Niyoga.
Ksetraja is one who is conceived on a man's better half or widow as indicated by the standards of
Niyoga, when the man himself is either dead or inept or experiencing infection.

Dattaka
Dattaka is likewise called as Datrima by some Smrtikaras. He is one whom his dad or mom gives
as a child lovingly to an adopter with water. A few lawgivers stress that he ought to be of a similar
position of the adopter.

Krtrima
Krtrima, also called Krta, is a child whom a man makes his child because of his cunning and
characteristics. Gudhaja, Kanina and Sahodha The Gudhaja, Kanina and Sahodha are children
dependent on the unlawful association of the mother. Gudhaja is one who is conceived in a man's
home, being not known who his begetter is. In any case, this child has a place with him of whose
spouse he is bom. Kanina is one whom a lady bears subtly in the place of her dad and he has a
place with him who weds her thereafter. Sahodha or
Sahodhaja is the child bom of a lady who has been pregnant at the hour of marriage, regardless of
whether that reality was known or obscure to the individual wedding her. He has a place with the
individual who marries the lady.

A few modem researchers bring up that the convenience of these kinds of children, who are
unsuitable as indicated by the idea of celibacy of lady, is a striking or maybe perplexing
component of Indian family law. It is to be noted here that like these three kinds, the Ksetraja
likewise has a pollute of
unlawful association as he is generated on a man's better half by somebody
designated. Yet, as the custom Niyoga was legitimately acknowledged in
LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 12
Smrti writings, Ksetraja can't be considered as one bom through illegal association. The previously
mentioned three sorts of children, in spite of the fact that they were the aftereffect of illegal
association, were obliged in the family. In such manner, P.V.Kane appropriately watches 'The
Smrtis when they dole out these as the children of the spouse's of the ladies of whom they are bom
are truly accommodating them matters of upkeep and guardianship.' 3

Krita or Kritaka
The Krita or Kritaka is one who is purchased by an individual from his dad and mom for making
the kid his child, regardless of whether the kid is equivalent or inconsistent.

Paunarbhave
The Paunarbhave is a legitimate child as he is bom to a lady who has gotten every second marriage
voluntarily.

Svayamdatta
Svayamdatta is one who having lost his folks or being relinquished by them without appropriate
reason, offers himself to a man as a child. A thirteenth sort called Saudra is additionally referenced
by certain law suppliers like Baudhayana, Vasistha and Manu. He is a child whom a Brahmana
brings forth through desire from a Sudra spouse.Manu calls him Parasava.
As respects the spot of the few sorts of children and their rights to property, there is distinction of
sentiment among the lawgivers. Aurasa is acknowledged as the most importantly by all Smrtikaras.
Putrikaputra comes next as indicated by Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya and Brhaspati. Yet, Vasistha,
Narada furthermore, Visnu give the third spot to him. Gautama considers him just in the tenth spot.
Ksetraja is put in the second place by Gautama, Vasistha, Narada and Visnu while others like
Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya and Brhaspati give third spot to him. The difference in the spot of
Dattaka is particularly an eminent one. The greater part of the lawgivers like Yajnavalkya give a
lower place to him. In any case, Gautama thinks about him in the third spot. Manu, Baudhayana
and Brhaspati place him as fourth in the request.

3
Supra,1

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 13

Property right of auxiliary children — various perspectives.
There is distinction of supposition about the privilege of inheritance of the various sorts of children.
Gautama and Baudhayana group, however with a slight contrast, these twelve children into
Rikthabhajas (who reserve the option to acquire) what's more, Gotrabhajas (who bear the
connection as it were). As indicated by Gautama, Aurasa, Ksetraja, Datta, Krtrima, Gudhotpanna
and Apaviddha are Rikthabhaja and the other six are Gotrabhaja.

Baudhayana incorporates Putrikaputra additionally in the gathering of Rikthabhaja.

Manu utilizes another two terms, for example, Dayadabandhavas furthermore,
Adayadabandhavas, which are like Rikthabhaja and Gotrabhaja separately. The Dayadabandhavas
are acknowledged as beneficiaries and relatives. The Adayadabandhavas will fail the abundance
of their dad yet they are relatives. As per him, Aurasa, Ksetraja, Datta, Krtrima, Gudhotpanna and
Apaviddha go under the primary gathering. Kanina, Sahodha, Krita, Paunarbhava, Svayamdatta
and Saudra are incorporated into the subsequent gathering. All things considered, Manu identifies
thirteen sorts of children, counting Saudra. In any case, in the above stanzas he alludes to 12 sorts
as it were. The Putrikaputra isn't alluded to here. The explanation may be that he considers
Putrikaputra equivalent to Aurasa itself.

Yajnavalkya's View

“The rank and importance of sons accepted by Yajiiavalkya is as follows:

1) Auras,
2) Putrikaputra,
3) Ksetraja,
4) Gudhaja,
5) Kanina,
6) Paunarbhava,
7) Dattaka,
8) Krta,
9)Krtrima,
10) Svayamdatta,
11) Sahodhaja and
LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 14
12) Apaviddha”. 4

It is to be noted here that Yajiiavalkya doesn't characterize them as Rikthabhajas and Gotrabhajas.
As indicated by him, every one of these twelve kinds of children take the abundance of the dad
and offers Pinda to him in default of the former one. He additionally focuses on that this standard
will be viable just in the event that it is sure that the children are of the equivalent station as that
of the dad. Concurring the essential importance, the observers of YS decipher these sections with
slight changes in the idea. Visvarupa acknowledges every one of these 12 sorts of children as
'Rikthabhajas' and 'Pindada' in default of the first one. He at that point includes that if the former
one exists, the various kinds of children ought to be given upkeep so as to stay away from the flaw
of being remorseless.

Apararka likewise acknowledges the backup children as beneficiaries in the nonappearance of the
former one. He further clarifies that by 'Adayadabandhava' Manu doesn't imply that they can't
succeed the abundance of their dad. Then again it implies that they can't succeed the abundance of
their dad's family.
'Dayadabandhavas' can take the abundance of their dad and of is family whereas
'Adayadabandhavas' can take the riches of the dad's riches as it were.

Vijnanesvara's Interpretation

Remarking on Yajiiavalkya's announcement Vijiianesvara certainly expresses all no matter what

have the privilege of acquiring their father's domain in the default of the previous one.He presents
a point by point exchange on the perspectives on ancient law suppliers like Gautama, Vasistha,
Manu and Visnu with respect to the privileges of auxiliary children. He cites a stanza from Visnu,
which stipulates that Kanina, Gudhotpanna, Sahodha what's more, Paunarbhava have no privilege
either to perform burial service oblation or to acquire the abundance of his dad.
Here Vijrianesvara accommodate the logical inconsistency by saying that this entry of Visnu
simply prevents the privilege from claiming those children to a quarter share, if there be the real

4
Supra,1

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 15

issue. However, in the event that there be no real child or other ideal petitioner, even Kanina
himself may prevail to the entire fatherly home.
He further comments that Manu's announcement on Aurasa's sole heirship of his dad's riches is
definitely not a general standard. It must be considered as appropriate to a situation where different
children are insubordinate and without great characteristics.
He again says that the division of twelve sorts of children into two gatherings like
Dayadabandhavas' and 'Adayadabandhavas', laid by Manu, isn't it could be said of keeping the
second gathering from the inheritance of their dad's property. In any case, it must be explained as
connoting that the first six may take the abundance of their dad and of his family if there is no
closer beneficiary yet the last six can't prevail to the abundance of their dad's family.

Vijiianesvara clarifies that Manu's words 'not siblings or guardians, yet children are beneficiaries
to the home of father' deliberately attests the progression of every single auxiliary child other than
the Aurasa. Inconsistencies in positioning the auxiliary children in different writings are likewise
accommodated by Vijiianesvara by proposing sensible arrangement. It is indicated that the
distinction in the request of list of the children seen in Vasistha and so forth should be
comprehended as established on the distinction of good and awful characteristics. Gautama's
perspective on relegating tenth spot to Putrikaputra is accommodated by saying that it is
comparative with one varying in the Varna. In this manner, at last Vijiianesvara infers that each of
the twelve sorts of children takes the abundance of the dad in default of the first one.
Gautama and Baudhayana classify, though with a slight difference, these twelve sons into
Rikthabhajas (who have the right to inherit) and Gotrabhajas (who bear the kinship only).
According to Gautama, Aurasa, Ksetraja, Datta, Krtrima, Gudhotpanna and Apaviddha are
Rikthabhaja and the other six are Gotrabhaja.

Succession to the Property of a Sonless Person

It is referenced before that the Dharmasutras recommend certain general standards on the
progression of the bequest of a sonless individual. Be that as it may, their significance has been
given to Sapindas (agnates), Sakulyas (cognates) and now and again to the educator of the expired.
It is from Manu onwards that little girl, little girl's child and guardians enter to the rundown of
beneficiaries. Apastamba acknowledges girl as a beneficiary, yet puts her as the last one in the
LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 16
request. Then again, Manu allots a sensible spot for her among the beneficiaries announcing that
one's little girl is equivalent to his child. He includes that when she is alive nobody can acquire her
dad's property.
Besides, however Manu announces girl as a beneficiary, further explanations given there
demonstrate that as per him, the right of inheritance of a Putrika is really the privilege of
inheritance of her child. In the consequent stanza, he expressly says that the girl's child, not the
little girl, acquire the riches of a sonless man and he should offer Pindas to his dad also as maternal
granddad.

Yajnavalkya's Scheme of Inheritance

As respects the progression of property of a sonless individual, Yajnavalkya sets down

increasingly clear and dynamic contemplations. He lists a few classes of beneficiaries in an
ordinary request. As in numerous different perspectives, here additionally he concurs with
Visnudharmasutra or then again Visnusamhita that introduces the plan of inheritance.
[If a man kicks the bucket without a male issue, his significant other, girls, father, mother, siblings,
their children, Gotrajas (agnatic family) Bandhus (cognatic relations) a supporter, a kindred
understudy will acquire his property by degree - the following party prevailing in the
nonattendance of the past one. This law is pertinent to people of the equivalent caste.]
While clarifying this section the pundits have put forward dissimilar perspectives on a few angles
with respect to progression and property right. The translation of each word of this entry by the
well known pundits Uke Visvarupa, Apararka, Vijiianesvara and Mitramisra are talked about
beneath.

Wife as a Successor

As per Yajiiavalkya, 'Patni', the widow, is first qualified for the progression of the property of a
sonless man. Visvarupa, the most punctual reporter of YS, holds that the word 'Patni' in the section
implies a spouse who is imagining.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 17

As indicated by Vijnanesvara 'Patni' here implies a lady embraced in lawful wedlock; similarly
with the historical underpinnings of the term as suggesting an association with strict rituals. He
additionally calls attention to that however the word is in particular, it demonstrates the plural
sense. Consequently, if there are a few widows, of same or diverse class, they may parcel the
property among them. 5

Refutation of Dharesvara's View

Before showing his contentions of compromise, Vijiianesvara, after a definite discourse, disproves
the perspectives Dharesvara,(supposed to be King Bhoja by certain researchers) who additionally
has attempted to accommodate the conflicing articulations referenced above.

According to Dharesvara, the guideline made by Yajiiavalkya respects the widows of an isolated
sibling on the off chance that she be kind of expert for raising up issue to her better half.

He cites entries from Manu, Gautama, Vasistha and Narada which are supporting his view. He
likewise calls attention to that the equivalent thought is announced by Yajiiavalkya himself in the
refrain. Dharesvara again contends that since the abundance of a twice-conceived man is intended
for strict uses, the progression of ladies to such property is unfit on the grounds that they are not
skillful to the execution of strict ceremonies.

Be that as it may, Vijiianesvara refiites these purposes of compromise set forward by Dharesvara.
Above all else, says Vijiianesvara, the power to ascend issue to the spouse (Niyoga) is not one or
the other determined nor recommended in the announcement 'patni duhitarah' in YS. Additionally,
if sales for Niyoga is taken as explanation behind widow's progression, there emerges the inquiry
whether the arrangement to ascend the issue is the purpose behind widow's progression or the issue
born to her is the reason for it. On the off chance that the arrangement alone be the explanation
then she has an option to the home without having borne a child. On the off chance that the
posterity, be the sole reason for her case, the spouse ought not be discussed as a successor by
Yajiiavalkya.

5
Mulla, Hindu Law(2015)

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 18

The irregularity in the elucidation of Dharesvara is likewise brought up by Vijiianesvara. Since by
asserting the right of the widow who is requested for Niyoga, the privilege of Ksetraja to succeed
the home of the expired is for all intents and purposes confirmed, which had been now pronounced
before.

Daughter as an heir

In ancient Indian law, similarly as the widow, the little girl additionally needed to battle hard for
acknowledgment as a beneficiary. Indeed, even without sibling, she was not considered as a line
to the fatherly property. Prior lawgivers like Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha barred her from
the rundown of beneficiaries. Apastamba in spite of the fact that perceives, places her as a
discretionary beneficiary identifying as the last one in the request.
Manu, however he proclaims 'little girl is equivalent to one's children', in the following entry
unequivocally says that it is Dauhitra not the girl, who acquire the abundance of a sonless man.
Yet, Yajiiavalkya, following Vrddhavisnu, perceives her as a beneficiary after the widow.

Vijnanesvara on Daughter's Heirship

Vijnanesvara presents a more clear and increasingly dynamic understanding in regards to little
girl's heirship. He says that the plural number 'Duhitarah' proposes the equivalent or inconsistent
support of girls comparative or unique by class. That
implies girls who are unique from the parent ought to likewise be considered as beneficiaries.
Following Katyayana, Vijfianesvara offers inclination to the unmarried daughtes. Further he says
that the standard recommended by Gautama on the inheritance of Stridhana is relevant to the
fatherly domain too. Along these lines, with a philanthropic thought, Vijfianesvara states that
among wedded little girls the poverty stricken one is to be wanted to one who is well-set.
The understanding of Mitramisra, the creator of Viramitrodaya needs exceptional notice here. He
likewise refiites the elucidation that the 'duhitarah' specify putrika'.According to him little girls
who are not hitched and who have a place with a similar class of the dad acquire the domain
without the widow.
Preference among Parents
Guardians are not in any manner alluded to as beneficiaries in any of the Dharmasutras by the
previous lawgivers. It is Manu who first gives them the privilege to acquire the abundance of a
LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 19
sonless expired individual. In one spot, Manu states that mother takes the abundance of a child
who kicks the bucket issueless.

Brothers and their Sons as Heirs

As per Yajnavalkya, on the disappointment of guardians, siblings succeed and, on their

disappointment, their children acquire. Visvarupa states that the word 'Tatha' in the section is
utilized to incorporate relatives too. In this way, in Visvarupas see both full siblings and relatives.
(Stepbrothers are the children of a similar dad yet sprung from an alternate mother) reserve the
privilege to succeed the abundance of a sonless man in the disappointment of guardians. In any
case, as per Apararka and Vijnanesvara among the siblings those of full blood acquire in inclination
to stepbrothers. The explanation is that their propinquity to the expired is thus most noteworthy.

Vijnanesvara likewise have a similar thought when he says the full-siblings take the inheritance in
the principal occurrence since those of the half-blood are remote through the distinction of the
moms. On the off chance that there is no uterine sibling, those by various moms acquire the
domain. On disappointment of siblings, their children have the

legacy in the request for the separate siblings. Vijiianesvara demands that if a sibling passes on
leaving no male issue and the bequest has therefore lapsed on his siblings detachedly, in the event
that anybody of them pass on before segment of their sibling's home happens, his children do all
things considered obtain a title through their dad.

Vijiianesvara's View
Vijnanesvara presents a completely extraordinary significance to the term Sapinda. In the
Vivahaprakarana of Acaradhyaya he clarifies that Sapinda implies association through particles of
a similar body.

As indicated by Vijiianesvara this Sapindas are of two sorts

(1) Samanagotrajas - the individuals who sprung from a similar family

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 20

 6
(2) Bhinnagotrajas - the individuals who sprung from an alternate family.

Bhinnagotrajas are assigned as Bandhus. In the event that there be none such, as fatherly grandma
and Sapindas of Samanagotra, the progression lapses on related associated by drinks of water
(Samanodaka). The term Samanodaka signifies a remoter level of related in association with
polluting influence and memorial service ceremonies. Vijiianesvara states Samanodaka
relationship reaches out to the fourteenth degree or else to the extent furthest reaches of learning
as to birth and name expand.It is expressed before that in ancient Indian law there were two
customs to the extent the law of progression is concerned. The Dayabhaga custom acknowledged
strict adequacy of Pindas as the deciding rule of progression. Be that as it may, the Mitaksara,
giving another elucidation to 'Sapinda' took proximity of blood as the deciding element of legacy.
In a few perspectives, the modem Hindu progression law pursues Vijiianesvara's ideas what's
more, speculations in such manner.

The Succession of the Property of a Hermit

People such as hermit (Vanaprastha), austere (Sannyasin) and Brahmacarin can have no property
by legacy as they are suspended from offers. However, a hermit may have a crowd of necessaries
for a day or a year. An austere and a Brahma Carin have garments and different necessaries.

Be that as it may, Vijiianesvara's understanding is very different. the property of a loner goes to a
profound sibling having a place with a similar withdrawal; that of a parsimonious goes to a
righteous understudy and of strict understudy goes to his preceptor. He further clarifies that here,
by the word Brahmacarin, an unending one is expected, in view of the property of a transitory
Brahmacarin goes to his mom.

Mts appoints that an individual, who’s direct is awful, is dishonorable of the inheritancei.
Subodhini, an editorial on Mts, makes it all the clearer saying that the appellation righteous (wf)
is expected for the most part. Thus, the preceptor and the kindred loner are successors in their
particular cases, if their direct is unexceptionable. 7

6
supra,3
7
supra,3

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 21

Vijiianesvara includes that in default of those beneficiaries, to be specific the preceptor and the
rest, despite the fact that children and maternal beneficiaries exist, any one related in blessedness
takes the property.

Succession to a Re-united Person

Vijnanesvara's explanation in this issue isn't generally recognized by various people of the later
makers. Here in like manner he offers tendency to nearness and substantiates that the wholeblood
has the tendency before the half-blood. By and by, during a time where the joint family system
was fiilly broken, this indicate, the movement to re-joined individual, has no any contemporary
relevance. He who being once segregated remains again through affection with his father, kin or
caring uncle, is named as Samsrsti.

Yajnavalkya prescribes outstanding norms concerning the movement of the property of a re-joined
person. He says a re-joined parcener or kin will keep the segment of his rejoined coheir or kin,
who is terminated; or will pass on it to a youngster thusly considered. Visvarupa explains that part
of such a re-joined parcener died must be offered also to the kid along these lines bound to his
father (to the kin of the lapsed).
He again clarifies that the relative, however re-joined together with the expired doesn't take the
bequest. Be that as it may, the full-sibling, despite the fact that not re-joined together, can take it.
Apararka likewise acknowledges the privilege of the full-sibling, not of the relative, to succeed the
bequest of a re-joined individual. Yet simultaneously he expresses that the portion of such a re-
joined together parcener expired must be given to his after death child. Vijiianesvara gives a
progressively definite clarification to these stanzas. As indicated by him, this entry is a special case
to the standards recommended before, that the spouse and others acquire the property of an
individual passing on sonless. So he clarifies that in the instance of a perished re-joined individual,
the enduring re-joined together part should give the portion of the perished to the after death child
of the previous, however may take it himself if there is no child. Among the re-joined siblings, the
full-sibling, whenever rejoined, should take it himself to the prohibition of re-joined half - siblings.
A stepbrother may have the equivalent on the off chance that he is once more related in family
association. In any case, an entire sibling, however not all that related can share it. Vijnanesvara

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 22

states that by this entry Yajiiavalkya worries to the point that the relative in spite of the fact that
re-joined isn't sole beneficiary. He may impart it to the fullbrother not re-joined together.
Vijnanesvara's translation in this issue isn't by and large acknowledged by numerous individuals
of the later creators. Here likewise he offers inclination to proximity and substantiates that the
wholeblood has the inclination before the half-blood. Presently, in an age where the joint family
framework was fiilly broken, this theme, the progression to re-joined individual, has no any
contemporary significance.

Vijnanesvara's Interpretation of Stridhana

He again clarifies that the relative, however re-joined together with the expired doesn't take the
bequest. Be that as it may, the full-sibling, despite the fact that not re-joined together, can take it.
Apararka likewise acknowledges the privilege of the full-sibling, not of the relative, to succeed the
bequest of a re-joined individual. Yet simultaneously he expresses that the portion of such a re-
joined together parcener expired must be given to his after death child. Vijiianesvara gives a
progressively definite clarification to these stanzas. As indicated by him, this entry is a special case
to the standards recommended before, that the spouse and others acquire the property of an
individual passing on sonless. So he clarifies that in the instance of a perished re-joined individual,
the enduring re-joined together part should give the portion of the perished to the after death child
of the previous, however may take it himself if there is no child. Among the re-joined siblings, the
full-sibling, whenever rejoined, should take it himself to the prohibition of re-joined half - siblings.
A stepbrother may have the equivalent on the off chance that he is once more related in family
association. In any case, an entire sibling, however not all that related can share it. Vijnanesvara
states that by this entry Yajiiavalkya worries to the point that the relative in spite of the fact that
re-joined isn't sole beneficiary. He may impart it to the full brother not re-joined together.
Vijnanesvara's translation in this issue isn't by and large acknowledged by numerous individuals
of the later creators. Here likewise he offers inclination to proximity and substantiates that the
wholeblood has the inclination before the half-blood. Presently, in an age where the joint family
framework was fiilly broken, this theme, the progression to re-joined individual, has no any
contemporary significance.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 23

Woman's right on her Stridhana

What territory a lady has on her Stridhana is additionally a matter to be talked about. Yajnavalkya
endorse that a spouse is not at risk to reestablish the property of his better half taken by him in a
starvation, or for the presentation of an obligation, or during ailment, or while under limitation.
Citing Manu, he includes that no other individual, brother or beneficiary, with the exception of her
better half, may take her property in her life-time. In the event that any one take their products in
their life-time a righteous lord ought to reprimand by mflicting the discipline of theftunder
limitation.

Yajnavalkya also, Vijiianesvara acknowledged the sole proprietorship right of lady over her
Stridhana which even the spouse doesn't share. The principles and guidelines set somewhere
around Kautilya concerning's entitlement to Stridhana are likewise to be referenced here. He says
that a man who sells the Stridhana of his better half, without wanting to must return it with intrigue.
It is planned to look after herself, her kids or her little girl in-laws in cases where the spouse has
ventured out from home without making arrangement for them. As endorsed by Yajnavalkya, here
additionally the spouse is permitted to take it in extraordinary cases as it were. Nomially the spouse
can't take his significant other's Stridhana without her consent.

The Heirs of Stridhana

For the most part the devolution of the property of a lady is not the same as that of the property of
a male. Girls were continuously prohibited from succeeding the bequest of a dad on the off chance
that he has child. In moms property the case is extraordinary. A few lawgivers like Manu and
Sankha-Likhita recommend that it ought to be separated similarly among the children and little
girls. In any case Yajiiavalkya stipulates that little girls are the primary beneficiaries of the
Stridhana of their mom. While managing the subject of parcel, he pronounces that mother's
property initially goes to her little girls; on the disappointment of them, the male issues acquire it.
The explanation behind such a guideline is clarified by Vijnanesvara in this way: "the lady's
property goes to her little girls since segments of her flourish in her female kids; and the dad's
home goes to his children, since parts of him possess large amounts of his male kids.". Their
inclination is given to unmarried little girls. In them nonappearance wedded little girls ought to
LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 24
acquire. Among them additionally, on account of rivalry between those are given and those are
unprovided, the unprovided take the progression first.
On disappointment everything being equal, the granddaughters in the female line should take it.
Without girls and granddaughters, the children of the little girls acquire. On default of every one
of these beneficiaries, the male issue succeeds.
Another striking point is that the beneficiaries to Stridhana are diverse as per the type of the
marriage. The property of a childless lady who has turned into a spouse by any of the four types
of marriage named like Brahma, Arsa, Daiva and Prajapatya, have a place in any case to her
significant other. On disappointment of him, it goes to his closest relatives partnered by memorial
service oblations. In the four different types of marriage, Asura, Gandharva, Raksasa, and Paisaca,
the Stridhana of a childless lady goes to her folks.

ACCORDING TO KAUTILYA’S ARTHASHASTRA

DIVISION OF INHERITANCE

“SONS whose fathers and mothers or ancestors are alive cannot be independent (anísvarah). After
their time, division of ancestral property among descendants from the same ancestor shall take
place, calculating per sterpes (according to fathers). Self-acquired property of any of the sons with
the exception of that kind of property which is earned by means of parental property is not
divisible. Sons or grandsons till the fourth generation from the first parent shall also have
prescribed shares (amsabhájah) in that property which is acquired by means of their undivided
ancestral property; for the line (pindah) as far as the fourth generation is uninterrupted
(avichchhinnah). But those whose line or genealogy from the first ancestor is interrupted
(vichchhinnapindáh, i.e., those who are subsequent to the fourth generation), shall have equal
divisions. Those who have been living together shall redivide their property whether they had
already divided their ancestral property before or they had received no such property at all. Of
sons, he who brings the ancestral property to a prosperous condition shall also have a share of the
profit.8

8
Kautilya’s Arthashastra

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 25

If a man has no male issue, his own brothers, or persons who have been living with him, (saha
jívino vá), shall take possession of his movable property (dravyam); and his daughters, (born of
marriages other than the first four), shall have his immovable property (riktham). If one has sons,
they shall have the property; if one has (only) daughters born of such marriage as is contracted in
accordance with the customs of any of the first four kinds of marriage, they shall have the property;
if there are neither sons nor such daughters, the dead man's father, if living, shall have it; if he, too,
is not alive, the dead man's brothers and the sons of his brothers shall have it; if there are many
fatherless brothers, all of them shall divide it; and each of the many sons of such brothers shall
have one share due to his father (piturekamamsam); if the brothers (sodarya) are the sons of many
fathers, they shall divide it calculating from their fathers. Among a dead man's father, brother, and
brother's sons, the succeeding ones shall depend on the preceding ones if living (for their shares);
likewise, the youngest or the eldest claiming his own share. A father, distributing his property
while he is alive, shall make no distinction in dividing it among his sons. Nor shall a father deprive
without sufficient reason any of the sons of his share. Father being dead, the elder sons shall show
favour to the younger ones, if the latter are not of bad character. (Time of dividing inheritance.)
Division of inheritance shall be made when all the inheritors have attained their majority. If it is
made before, the minors shall have their shares, free of all debts.

These shares of the minors shall be placed in the safe custody of the relatives of their mothers, or
of aged gentlemen of the village, till they attain their majority. The same rule shall hold good in
the case of those who have gone abroad. Unmarried brothers shall also be paid as much marriage
cost as is equal to that incurred in the marriages of married brothers
(sannivishtasamamasannivishtebhyonaivesanikam dadyuh). Daughters, too, (unmarried) shall be
paid adequate dowry (prádánikam), payable to them on the occasion of their marriages. Both assets
and liabilities shall be equally divided. My teacher says that poor people (nishkinchanáh) shall
equally distribute among themselves even the mud-vessels (udapátram). In the opinion of Kautilya,
it is unnecessary to say so (chhalam); for as a rule, division is to be made of all that is in existence,
but of nothing that is not in existence. Having declared before witnesses the amount of property
common to all (sámánya) as well as the property constituting additional shares (amsa) of the
brothers (in priority of their birth), division of inheritance shall be carried on. Whatever is badly
and unequally divided or is involved in deception, concealment or secret acquisition, shall be
redivided. Property for which no claimant is found (ádáyádakam) shall go to the king, except the

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 26

property of a woman, of a dead man for whom no funeral rites have been performed, or of a
niggardly man with the exception of that of a Bráhman learned in the Vedas. That (the property of
the learned) shall be made over to those who are well-versed in the three Vedas. Persons fallen
from caste, persons born of outcaste men, and eunuchs shall have no share; likewise, idiots,
lunatics, the blind and lepers. If the idiots, etc., have wives with property, their issues who are not
equally idiots, etc., shall share inheritance. All these persons excepting those that are fallen from
caste (patitavarjah) shall be entitled to only food and clothing.

* If these persons have been married (before they became fallen, etc.) and if their line is likely to
become extinct, their relatives may beget sons for them and give proportional shares of inheritance
to those sons.9

SPECIAL SHARES IN INHERITANCE.

GOATS shall be the special shares of the eldest of sons, born of the same mother, among,
Bráhmans; horses among Kshatriyas; cows among Vaisyas; and sheep among Súdras. The blind
of the same animals shall be the special shares to the middle-most sons; species of variegated
colour of the same animals shall be the special shares to the youngest of sons. In the absence of
quadruped, the eldest shall take an additional share of the whole property excepting precious
stones; for by this act alone, he will be bound in his duty to his ancestors. The above method is in
accordance with the rules observed among the followers of Usanas. The father being dead, his
carriage and jewellery shall be the special share to the eldest; his bed, seat, and bronze plate in
which he used to take his meals (bhuktakámsyam), to the middle-most. and black grains, iron,
domestic utensils, cows and cart to the youngest. The rest of the property, or the above things, too,
may be equally divided among themselves. Sisters shall have no claim to inheritance; they shall
have the bronze plate and jewellery of their mother after her death. An impotent eldest son shall
have only 1/3rd of the special share usually given to the eldest; if the eldest son follows a
condemnable occupation or if he has given up the observance of religious duties, he shall have
only ¼ of the special share; if he is unrestrained in his actions he shall have nothing. The same
rule shall hold good with the middlemost and youngest sons; of these two, one who is endowed
with manliness (mánushopetah), shall have half the special share usually given to the eldest. With
regard to sons of many wives: -- Of sons of two wives of whom only one woman has gone through

9
supra,6.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 27

all the necessary religious ceremonials, or both of whom have not, as maidens, observed necessary
religious rites, or one of whom has brought forth twins, it is by birth that primogenitureship is
decided. Shares in inheritance for such sons as Súta, Mágadha, Vrátya and Rathakára shall depend
on the abundance of paternal property; the rest, i.e., sons other than Súta, etc., of inferior birth,
shall be dependent on the eldest for their subsistence. Dependent sons shall have equal divisions.
Of sons begotten by a Bráhman in the four castes, the son of a Bráhman woman shall take four
shares; the son of a Kshatriya woman three shares; the son of a Vaisya woman two shares, and the
son of a Súdra woman one share. The same rule shall hold good in the case of Kshatriya and Vaisya
fathers begetting sons in three or two castes in order. An Anantara son of a Bráhman, i.e. a son
begotten by a Bráhman on a woman of next lower caste, shall, if endowed with manly or superior
qualities (mánushopetah), take an equal share (with other sons of inferior qualities); similarly
Anantara sons of Kshatriya or Vaisya fathers shall if endowed with manly or superior qualities,
take half or equal shares (with others). An only son to two mothers of different castes shall take
possession of the whole property and maintain the relatives of his father. A Palrasava son begotten
by a Bráhman on a Súdra woman, shall take 1/3rd share; a sapinda, (an agnate) or a kulya (the
nearest cognate), of the Bráhman shall take the remaining two shares, being thereby obliged to
offer funeral libation; in the absence of agnates or cognates, the deceased father's teacher or student
shall take the two shares.

* Or on the wife of such a Bráhman shall a sagotra, relative bearing the same family name, or a
(mátribandha) relative of his mother, beget a natural son (kshetraja), and this son may take that
wealth”.10

10
Supra,6.

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 28

BIBLIOGRAPHY-

 History of Dharmasutras
 Kautilya’s Arthashastra
 Manu Dharmashastra
 Yajnavalkya’s Smriti
 Nardia Dharmasatra
 Mulla’s Hindu Law
 History of Dharmasutras
 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/136006/8/08_chapter%20ii.pdf

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 29