Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

WHAT IS DĀYA?
Author(s): A. B. Shinde
Source: Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. 53, No. 1/4 (1972), pp.
233-238
Published by: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41688777
Accessed: 27-06-2016 11:03 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHAT IS DAYA?
By

A. B. Shinde

Introduction :

Nothing perhaps has played such a vital role in the evolution of

civilization and state as the institution of property. ' The true justifi-
cation of property is that it is needed for the development of persona-
lity The development of personality, truly speaking, results into
the amelioration of state and society indirectly. As a consequence of this
the institution of property is considered fundamental to society and
individual alike. The state and society have always joined hands to
uphold and regulate the institution in every age. It is no wonder,
therefore, that the Hindu Law-givers have given a serious thought
to it.

Use of the Word :

The use of the word day a ( property ) is as ancient as the Vedic
Literature. This is crystal clear from the following excerpts. c .. With
never-breaking needle may she sew her work, and give a hero son most
wealthy, meet for praise'.2 ' All thy kind thoughts, O Rãkã, lovely in
their form, wherewith thou grantest wealth to him who offers gifts - 3
In the story of Nãbhãnedistha it is stated that 1 Manu divided his
property among ( for ) his sons '4 ' Therefore, they establish their
eldest son by property '6 ' Therefore, whoever among ( a man's ) sons
secures the best or major portion of property as dãya , him they treat as
the son who would be lord of all '.6 In the above passages the word
dãya appears to be employed in the sense of 1 paternal property ' or
simply 1 property'. ' Yoked to his chariot-pole there stood the coursers •
they only travel round earth's farthest limits. These, when their driver
in his home is settled, receive the allotted meed of their exertion'.7 In this
citation, the meaning of the word dãya seems to be a 'a share of reward
The word riktha is also employed in the sense of an ancestral property
in the Rgveda HI. 31. 2 1 the son of the body does not give to his sister

1 W. S. M'kechnie, The State and the Individual p. 337.

2 Rgveda II. 32. 4.
» tigveda II. 32. 5. * Taitttnya tiamntta ill. 1. y. 4.
6 Taittirvya Sariihitã II. 5. 2. 7. 6 Tãndy a Brãhmana 16. 4, 3-6.
ï Rgveda X. 114. 10.

SO [ Annals B. O. R. I. ]

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
234 Annals of the Èhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

the ancestral property, but makes her the receptacle for the son of her
husband and 1. 73. 9 ' aided by thee, O Agni, may we conquer steeds
with steeds, men with men, heroes with heroes, Lords of the property
transmitted by our Fathers; and may our princes live a hundred winters'.
Another word that deserves attention is dãyãda (meaning a co-sharer,
one who takes a share) which is often found in the Vedic Literature viz.
1 Therefore, women being destitute of strengh take no portion ( of soma )
and speak more weakly than even a wretched ( low ) man '1 ť The
brähmana is not to be injured, like fire, by one who holds himself dear ;
for Soma is his heir, Indra his protector against imprecation' (Atharva-
veda V. 18. 6 ). Kane reads Soma in the above quotation as the dãyãda
oí the brähmanas.2 He further points out that ' Yiávãmitra invites
Šunahšepa to share in the spiritual property belonging to him ( Aitareya
Brähmana 33.5 ), calls upon his sons to follow him and states that he
( Šunaháepa ) would accept them, his property and his learning'
( Aitareya Brähmana 33.6 ). One may come across the words dãya
and däyäda in the other Vedic. passages either quoted or summarised by
the Nir . III. 4. In Panini II. 3.39 and VI. 2.5 the word däyäda is
tound. * Inheritance, presents ( from friends ), purchase, conquest, accre-
tion by interest, investment in ( trade or agriculture ), and taking gifts
from the worthy constitute the seven lawful ( honest or virtuous ) sources
of property '3 Here Manu has employed the word dãya as one of the
seven lawful sources of property.

Significance of the Word :

The word dãya has attained special significance in companionship

of vibhãga ( partition ). There is a vast literature on däyabhäga ( parti-
tion of property ) in most of the Hindu Law books. It is largely in the
context of däyabhäga that the word dãya has been discussed ; one
would hardly witness its treatment independent of däyabhäga. Both
Kane and Joshi have devoted special chapters to Däyabhäga.4 The
digests abound in many definitions of both the words dãya and vibhãga.
The ' vyavaliärapada däyabhäga ' is defined as one in which sons arrange
for the partition of their father's property '5 Kane is of the opinion
that * the Madanaratna as noted by the V. Mayülcha ( text p. 94 ) reads
' arthasya pitryädeh' ( property of the father and others ) for ( pitryasyâ,'

lTaittirïya Saihhitã VI. 5. 8. 2.

2 Mahãmahopãdhyãya P. V. Kane, History of Dharmaêãstra Vol. III. p. 544.
3 Manu X. 115.

4 MM. P. V. Kane, H. of Dh . Vol. Ill, Chap. XXVII. pp. 543-661 ; Tarka-

teertha Lakshmanshastri Joshi, Editor-in-Chief, Dharmakosa Vol. I. Part
II, pp. 1120-1589 and parb III, pp. 1979-88.
* När. ( däyabhäga, verse 1 ).

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Miscellaneä 235

iri Närada's verse'.1 The Smrtisangraha , quoted in the Smrtican -

drikä and other works, gives the meaning of dãya comparatively in
greater detail : 'The property inherited through a father and mother
is called by the word dãya '. Now the ( mode of ) partition ( of property)
will be told.2 ' Now ( it ) will be shown as to when, by what method,
amongst whom, the type of property to be divided '3 ' The one who
has property does not necessarily own it. Do not we see some one's
property in the hands of others by way of theft etc/4 ť (I) Therefore,
the ownership should be decided only on the basis of law and not on the
ground of experience. ( II ) Otherwise, it would not be proper to say
that one lias stolen the property of another'.5 'Šastras have prescri-
bed to different castes different ways of acquiring property ; accepting
gift, war, commerce, and service are respectively ( the different ways of
acquiring property by different castes ' ).6 ť What is spent according
to one's will is not ( necessarily ) called property. Even the method of
spending money is governed by the šastras'.7 1 Sons acquire ownership
through the division of father's property. Upon the acquisition of
ownership, money is required to be expended according to dharma '.8
It is intelligible from the above extracts that dãya is that property
which is inherited through a father and mother. Further, it is note-
worthy that dãya is discussed in the context of ownership, sources,
employment, and partition of propertj7. Thus, the meanings of dãya
spring up from its relation with each of them. The Nighantu states
that dãya is called the partible property of father by the wise.9 The
Smrticandrikã ( 255 ) further states that 4 the partible inherited
through a father is called dãya by the elders ' In this connection the

1 MM. P. V. Kank, H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 545.

2 Smrticandrikã 255 ; Also See : Parãsaramãdhava 478 ; Madanaratna 135 ;
Sarasvativilãsa 344, 363, 387 ; Dãyabhãga-nirnaya 1 ; Vyavahcïramayûkha 41 ;
Vivãdatãndava 277 ; Vyavahãrãrthasamuccaya 12a.
8 Smrticandrikã 255 ; Also see : Sarasvativilãsa 349 ; Vyavahãrãrthasamu'
ccaya 126.
4 Smrticandriká 256 ; Also see : Parâê'iramâdhava 481 ; Madanaratna 136 ;
Sarasvativilãsa 404 ; Vyavahãraprakãêa 416 ; VyavahãrãrthasamuGGaya 126.
6 ( I ) Smrticandriká 256 ; Also see : Sarasvativilãsa 404 ; Vy avahar aprakaš a
416 ; VyavahãrãrthasamuGGaya 126 ;
(II) Smrticandriká 257 ; Also see: Madanaratna 136; Vyavahãraprakãsa
416 ; VyavahãrãrthasamuGGaya 126.
6 Smrticandrikã 257 ; Also see : Madanartna 136 ; Vy avahãr aprakã ša 416.
' Smrticandrikã 257 ; Also see : Madanaratna 136 ; Vyavahãraprakãsa 416 ;
VyavahãrãrthasamuGGaya 126.
8 ¡Smrticandrikã 259 ; Also see : Vyavahãraprakãêa 437 ; Vyavahãrãrthasa •
muGcaya 127.
8 Smrticandrikã 255 ; Also see : Sarasvativilãsa 344 ; Vyavahãraprakãêa 411 J
Vivãdatãndava 277 ; Dãyabhãga-nirnaya 1,

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Annals of the Èhandarìcar Oriental Ëesearch institute

view of Vyavahãraprakãsa ( 411 ) deserves to be placed on record :

' Since the word dãya is employed elsewhere, the use of the word father
indicates sheer relation ( with one who inherits property ). Partible
need not be partitioned, otherwise, in case one and only son owns
property, the word dãya would ( simply ) not be applicable ' It can
easily be seen in the above quotations as to how the word dãya comes
to have different meanings. It is pointed out that ' the Dãyabhãga,
the Mitãksarã and others explain that the words 'pitryasya' ( father's)
and 'putraih' ( by the sons ) in the Nãr. are only illustrative, the
real meaning being that the word ' dãyabhãga ' applies wherever the
property of a person ( father, grandfather etc.) is distributed among
his relatives ( sons, grandsons etc. ) simply on account of their
relation to the deceased owner'.1 This view is very well noticeable in
the Dãyabhãga I. 3 : ' Both the words - of father and among sons -
indicate some relations only. Because, the word dãya is employed
whenever property of some relation is divided among some relatives'.
The Mitãksarã says, " here the word dãya connotes others' property
resulting from the ownership The above opinions are pretty well
corroborated by Manu and Nãrada when they speak of the distribution
of the mother's property also under dãyabhãga . The Mitãksarã , while
introducing Yãjnavalkyasmrti , maintains that the word dãya means
the property that becomes another's simply by reason of his relation
to the owner. The V yavahäramayükha ( p. 93 ) defines dãya as that
property which is partitioned and which is not the property of
re-united members.

The word dãya is derived from the root ' dã ' ( to give ). Thus,
etymologically speaking, it is clear that the word dãya has nothing to
do with ' heritable property ' in the literal sense ( of gift ). This is plain
from : ' Because of the etymology that is to be given, the word dãya and
the use of the word dã are subsidiary. In the case of both the deceased
and sannyãsin the results of the loss and acquisition of ownership are the
same. The problem of renouncing ownership, in case of the deceased, does
not arise. Therefore, the word dãya is in use where the ownership of one
person comes into being after the loss of the ownership of another'.2
Despite its derivation from the root dã , the word dãna is rather conven-
tionally used. In a gift there are two chief ingredients viz. 'abandoning
one's ownership over a thing and bringing about the ownership of
another in that thing '3 But in the case of dãya the deceased does

1 MM. P. V. Kane, H. of Dh. Vol. III. p. 545.

* Vide Dãycbtattva , pp. 161, 163 for almost identical words. Vyavahãraprakãsa t
pp. 411-12 quotes these words and criticises them.
8 MM. P. V. Kane, H . of. DH. Vol. II. p. 841.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Miscellanea 287

nt>t, of his own accord, give up his ownership in order tobring about
ownership in another. The only similarity between diana and dãya is
that in both there is termination of the ownership of man in a thing.

According to the Mitãksarã and its supporters such as the Parã*

káramãdhava , the Madanaratna , the Vyavahäramayülcha , the Vyava-
hõ/raprakãsa etc, dãya is split into two categories; ' apratibandha '
( unobstructible ) and c sapratibandha ' ( obstructive ). This can be
sèen from the following quotation : ' Dãya is of two types : 4 saprati-
bandha ' and 'apratibandha'. The property is claimed by inheritor
oply when the owner or his sons are not alive. This is called ' saprati-
bandha dãya'. The sons and grardsons become the owner of the property
of a father or grand-father right from their birth. This is called ' aprati-
bandha dãya ' In this case, the existence of the father or grandfather is
notatali an obstruction to the succession'.1 By the virtue of their'
being sons or grandsons or great-grandsons they acquire ownership in
thé ( ancestral ) property, in the case of ' apratibandha dãya '. It follows
from this that the son's or grandson's right to property is not denied
by the father or grandfather. In the case of * sapratibandha dãya ', a
father acquires the property of his uncle or son if they pass away
without any inheritor. But it may be said that the father has no right
to property of the uncle or son so long as they are alive and have their
heir : here, the presence of the owner directly obstructs the succession
by the father. It may be pointed out in this connection that the Dãya -
bhãgat the Dãyatattva and few others are very much opposed to the
division of dãya into two parts, as they consider all dãya as ' sapra-
tibandha '.

Résumé and Results :

In the end, it may be observed by way of recapitulation that the

word dãya has been employed in almost all the Hindu law books right
from the Vedic age to the modern times : its analysis almost invariably
constitutes the part of the discussion of dãyabhãga. The word dãya -
bhãga means the property of a person partitioned among his relatives
simply on account of their relation to the deceased owner. It appears
that to the Hindu Law givers the problem of the partition of property
was of supreme consequence. It may be said that the other aspects of
property have not merited their attention to that extent. It is dis-
cernible that the word dãya is particularly used in the context of the
sources of property, the ownership of property, the kinds of property,
the right to property, the impartible and partible property, the partition
of property, and the loss of property.

1 Madanaratna, vya. Folio 89*

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
238 Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

It is both interesting and instructive to note that the word dãya

does not stand for property etymologically. It is rather employed
conventionally. It assumes different meanings : it means simply a
property or a paternal property or an ancestral property or an inheri-
ted property ; it indicates property acquired by the reason of relation-
ship ; it is characterized as both partible and impartible ; sometimes it
is employed in the sense of a share or reward, at times it becomes one of
the seven lawful sources of property ; it is suggestive of not only a
possession of property but also of an exclusive and perpetual control
over it.

It indeed becomes clear from the consultation of the works quoted

in the body of the paper and indicated in the foot-notes that the Hindu
Law-givers do not seem to have endeavoured to justify the system of
property on the principles of psychology, ethics, history, economics,
etc. The whole range of their discussion revolves round the partition of
property and problems arising out of it. These works, being largely
legal in their nature, hardly indulge in the theoretical or an analytical
disquisition of the meaning, sources, ownership, kinds, right to prope-
rty, partibility and impartiality, partition and loss of property : they
are only, it is felt, an attempt at regulating the behaviour of people.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:03:36 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms