Page |1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE
THE LAW OF SUCCESSION IN ANCIENT INDIA

SUBJECT
HISTORY

NAME OF THE FACULTY

MR.VISHWACHANDRA NATH MADASU

Name of the Candidate

UPPULURI KRISHNA SANKAR

Roll No.
18LLB116

SEMESTER 1,SECTION:-B
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Mr.Vishwachandra Nath

Madasu sir who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic
(The Law of Succession in Ancient India), which also helped me in doing a lot of Research
and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.
 Page |3

CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION
 EVOLUTION OF SUCCESSION LAW UNDER TRADITIONAL HINDU LAW
 VEDIC AGE
 THE LAW OF INHERITANCE IN DHARMASUTRAS
 LAW OF SUCCESSION IN KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA
 LAW OF SUCCESSION IN MANUSMRITI
 MITAKSARA ON INHERITANCE
 YAJNAVALKYA'S VIEW ON THE LAW OF SUCCESSION
 VIJNANESVARA'S INTERPRETATION
 YAJNAVALKYA'S THEORY ON LAW OF SUCCESSION
 WIFE AS A SUCCESSOR
 CHASTE WIDOW SUCCEEDS
 DAUGHTER ACCEPTED AS A SUCCESSOR
 VIJNANESWARA VIEW ON DAUGHTER’S SUCCESSION
 PREFERENCE AMONG PARENTS
 BROTHERS AND THEIR SONS AS HEIRS
 THE HEIRS OF STRIDHANA
 DISINHERITANCE
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Page |4

PROJECT SUMMARY

The Law Of Succession in Ancient India is a huge topic . India is a vast country having
various kinds of people and also various kinds of religions. We have a history of every
singular law and tradition . Likewise there is a history for law of succession also. We have
various sources of history like Vedas , Dharmasutras , Upanishads, epics , monuments, etc.

Succession had an important role in all the times of ancient history. It is the most essential
thing for a human to get the rights over movable or immovable property. Succession means
succeeding the property of a deceased person. It is of two kinds , they are testate and
intestate. Testament succession is nothing but writing of will before the person die and
intestate succession dying of a person without writing any will. Intestate succession is a
general law. In ancient law the procedure or the law is different to the present day law of
succession.

In this project I mainly discuss about the law of succession in between 1500bc to 712AD. In
the early vedic period there was no demand on immovable property and they only have
movable property like cattle ,pots ,vessels ,cloths etc. Then the demand for immovable
property started from the later vedic society. Primarily the successors are the sons of the
family and if he is not there then the family must go for adoption of a boy or the complete
wealth goes to the nearest relative of them. From then there are some rules and regulations on
all the functions on the law of inheritance .In dharma sutras and other law makers made a
clear view on this law of succession.
 Page |5

OBJECTIVES AND AIMS OF THE STUDY

The main aim of the study is to know how the entire law of succession came into force from
ancient period.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Doctrinal Methodology.

SCOPE

The study restricted to the history of India between 1500BC to 712AD.

 Page |6

INTRODUCTION

Law of succession is basically about the way in which the property of a dead
person inherits to his or her heirs. Legal system handle these succession in variety of ways.
Where a person dies leaving a valid will then the person is said to be testate and the
succession called as testate succession. In law the right to make a will was once thought to be
the absolute right of any person who has property. The person who administers a testate is
called an executor. In this type of succession there will be no interference of law, it is all
independent and it only depends on the person who is going to write the will. Law even won’t
question on it. The procedure how to write a will is covered by law but it won’t interfere
There is another type of succession where the person dies without writing a will. In
this type of succession law comes into force. Law applies rules of intestate
distribution ,which determines what happens to the property of the deceased. Such an estate is
known as intestacy. The property does not automatically go to the government or the state as
unowned property as many people seems to believe. It may do under circumstances but only
where there are no classes of persons under the distribution rules who can take the property.
Where there is no will these rules determine who is to take the property and in what shares.
His or her affairs are administered by a person called administrator.
The persons who take the property are called next of kin. There is a legislation
called family provision or testators family maintenance legislation. Generally the succession
is concerned with questions such as who gets what on the death of a person who owns
property.

In this project I am going to answer all the general questions that we have in our
ancient law of succession, How and why the law of succession started? Who should get the
property in various times of our history? How should it be divided? etc.

EVOLUTION OF SUCCESSION LAW UNDER TRADITIONAL HINDU LAW

 Page |7

Hindu society always a patriarchal society , property rights of male members of the
family were always supreme and were considered to be more appropriate than any other
members of the family members. If we look at the commentaries and the Vedic age , amongst
the dictates of Manu, hinting at the negation of rights of women to be owners of property,
there are still ample references, indicating that a woman was always capable of owning
property. However, there was a lot of difference between theory and practice which was
actually followed. According to the texts, she could hold property but actually the property
given to the woman was merge to the property given to a man. Also, she didn’t have absolute
right to dispose the property and restrictions were placed on her. Thus the male dominance
leads to the inheritance rights were completely with the son and daughter has the least
preference in succession.

Rig Veda the earliest veda even called as the first and foremost veda of India.
Strengthening of private property appears to be one of the objectives of inheritance of
Dharma sastra texts. The rig veda society as a whole was tribal, pastoral, semi-nomadic and
largely egalitarian. This leads to the awareness of the property and thus it leads an idea to
create law on inheritance. The learning group of early vedic society made this law of
succession in rig veda.

VEDIC AGE

This veda is composed in the years between 1500bc to 1000bc. It took almost five
hundred years to compose this veda. This is the earliest veda. In this earliest vedic age the
movable property was far more important than immovable property. Movable property
consisted of primarily cattle, weapons and personal effects like pots, vessels and property
clothing etc. the immovable property includes lands and houses. These properties, especially
the cattle, belonged to the tribal units called GANA and PARISAD. This was clearly
expressed in several mantras of Rigveda.

But through the passage of time, the attitude of man towards wealth began to change.
The ambition to possess wealth as his own property gained more importance as basic means
through which Dharma, kama and svarga are fulfilled. All the classes used to earn property
through various means like brahmin used to get land and money through gifts and as
sacrificial fee. A ksatriya can acquire it through conquest, a vaisya through agriculture and
 Page |8

cattle rearing and sudra through service. Rules and regulations were formulated that are seen
codified in the texts called Dharmasastras.1

The property was held invariably by the members of the joint family and separate
acquisitions were inconsiderable. The tribal concepts of the communal society continued to
influence the succession laws and so, succession was first codified to agnates that means
sapindas or sagotras only. In the default of a male issue, and appointed daughter and her son,
the nearest relatives in the gotra or family succeeded. All the members descended from one
common stock in the male line of one gotra or family. In ancient law, such family union or
connection was the entire class from which a succession or an heir was derived. Gautama
extends this not only to the members of ordinary sapinda or sagotras but to the members of
Rishi gotra also.

In ancient Hindu law, the right of inheritance was closely related to the ancestral
worship. Every branch of Hindu law was based upon the philosophy of the three debts. A
man born with a three fold obligation to god (devarna), obligation to sages and obligation to
manes. The obligation to the manes or ancestors is required to be discharged by offering
sraddhas to them. The son, the great grandson were considered as competent to perform this
rite. Those who are competent to do this are authorities to inherit the estate the estate of the
deceased ancestors. The ancestral worship in anyway is spiritual inheritance. This spiritual
inheritance is the basis of the temporal inheritance, that of the estate.

THE LAW OF INHERITANCE IN DHARMASUTRAS

Dharmasutras are the earliest codified texts available in civil law. Law of inheritance is
much significant considering its social importance. Though these topics do not go into the
refined details of the topic as in the later Smrti texts, some general observations regarding
succession of property are seen in them. If there is no legitimate son, the estate will go the
subsidiary sons. The Dharmasutras say that the nearest heir at the time would take the
property. According to Gautama the estate of a man who dies sonless is shared by those
related to him through ancestry, lineage, or a common seer and by his wife.2

1
Shodganga, Law of succession in ancient India, p.3
2
Shodganga, Law of succession in ancient India, p.6
 Page |9

Apastamba Dharmasutras 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 the property. If teacher is not also the a student of the
person (renowned) must take. If he also not there then the daughter has the right to take it. If
none of these available, the king must take he property of the deceased.

Baudhayana Dharmasutras states that legitimate son is the first and foremost successor. In the
absence of others heirs the estate goes to relatives belonging to the same ancestry; in their
absence, to relatives belonging to the same family line; in their absence, the teacher who had
been like a father to the deceased, or a student or officiating priest of the deceased may take
it. He should donate that property to the persons deeply versed in the three Vedas.

Vasistha, is of opinion that in the absence of an heir belonging to the first six types of sons –
Aurasa, Ksetraja, Putrikaputra, Paunarbhave, Kanina and Gudhotpanna – people belonging to
the same ancestry or those taking the place of sons should divide the estate of the deceased.
In the absence of these, the teacher and the resident pupil should take it, and in their absence ,
the king must take the whole property.
LAW OF SUCCESSION IN KAUTILYA'S ARTHASHASTRA

Sons whose fathers and mothers or ancestors are alive can’t be independent 3. After they
dead, the division of ancestral property among descendants from the ancestor shall take place,
equally between all the members of a family. 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 4 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. But those
whose line or descent from the first ancestor is interrupted, shall have equal divisions. Those
who have been living together shall re-divide 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.

3
Anisvarah, Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.230
4
Amsabhájah, Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.231
 P a g e | 10

If a man has no male issue, his own brothers, or persons who have been living with him,
(saha jivinova), shall take possession of his movable property and his daughters, (born of
marriages other than the first four), shall have his immovable property. If one has sons, they
shall have the property; if one has 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, 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 , 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 later are
not of bad character.
In this Ardhasastra Kautilya gave clarification about the time when the division of
property takes place . Separation of inheritance shall be made when all the successors have
attained their majority. If it 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 cost as is equal to that incurred in the marriages of married brothers5. Daughters
, who are un married, shall be paid adequate dowry payable to them on the occasion of their
marriage. Both the assets and liabilities shall be equally divided. Having declared before
witnesses the amount of property common to all (samanya) as well as the property
constituting additional shares (amsa) of the brothers, division of inheritance shall be carried
on. Whenever there are any partialities in the division of the property then the superior
authority will re-divide the property.
Persons fallen from caste, persons born of outcaste men, and 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

5
Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.239
 P a g e | 11

excepting those that are fallen from caste shall be entitled to only food and clothing. If these
persons have been married 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.

SPECIAL SHARES IN INHERITANCE

Goats shall be the special shares of the eldest of sons, born of the same mother, among,
Brahmans, horses among Kshatriyas, cows among Vaisyas, and sheep among Sudras. 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 .
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 , 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
incapable 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, shall have half the special share usually given to the
eldest.6With regard to sons of many wives, sons of two wives of whom only one woman has
gone through 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
primogeniture ship is decided. Dependent sons shall have equal divisions.
Of sons begotten by a Brahman in the four castes, the son of a Brahman 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 Sudra woman one share. The same rule shall hold good in the case of
Kshatriya and Vaishya fathers be getting sons in three or two casts order.

6
Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.230
 P a g e | 12

An Anantara son of a Brahman, i.e. a son begotten by a Brahman on a woman of next lower
caste, shall, if endowed with manly or superior qualities , take an equal share, similarly
Anantara sons of Kshatriya or Vaisya fathers shall if endowed with manly or superior
qualities, take half or equal shares . 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 Brahman on a Súdra woman, shall take one third share; a sapinda, (an agnate)
or a kulya , of the Brahman 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 Brahman shall a sagotra, relative
bearing the same family name, or a relative of his mother, beget a natural son (kshetraja), and
this son may take that wealth.7

DISTINCTION BETWEEN SONS.

Others hold that the mother being only the receptacle for the seed (mata bhastra),
the child must belong to him from whose seed it is born. Kautilya says that it must belong to
both the living parents. The son begotten by a man on his wife who has gone through all the
required ceremonials is called aurasa, natural son, equal to him is the son of an appointed
daughter (putrikaputra), the son begotten on a wife by another man, appointed for the
purpose, and of the same gotra as that of the husband, or of a different gotra, is called
kshetraja; on the death of the begetter, the kshetraja son will be the son to both the fathers,
follow the gotras of both, offer funeral libations to both, and take possession of the
immovable property of both of them, of the same status as the kshetraja is he who is secretly
begotten in the house of relatives and is called gudhaja, secretly born, the son troupe off by
his natural parents is called apaviddha and will belong to that man who performs necessary
religious ceremonials to him; the son born of a maiden is called kanina, the son born of a
woman married while carrying is called sahodha; the son of a remarried woman
(punarbhatayah.) is called paunarbhava. A natural son can claim relationship both with his
father and his father's relatives; but a son born to another man can have relationship only with
his adopter. Of the same status as the latter is he who is given in adoption with water by both
the father and mother and is called datta. The son who, either of his own accord or following
the intention of his relatives, offers himself to be the son of another, is called upagata. He
who is appointed as a son is called kritaka and he who is purchased is called kríta.

7
Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.231.
 P a g e | 13

On the birth of a natural son, savarna sons shall have one third of inheritance while savarna
sons shall have only food and clothing. Sons begotten by Brahmans or Kshatriyas on women
of next lower caste (anantaraputrah) are called savarnas; but on women of castes lower by
two grades are called asavarnas, the son begotten by a Brahman on a Vaisya woman is called
Ambashtha; on a Súdra woman is called Nishada or Parasava. The son begotten by a
Kshatriya on a Sudra woman is known as Ugra; the son begotten by a Vaisya on a Súdra
woman is no other than a Súdra. Sons begotten by men of impure life of any of the four
castes on women of lower castes next to their own are called Vratyas. The above kinds of
sons are called anuloma, sons begotten by men of higher on women of lower castes.
Sons begotten by a Sudra on women of higher castes are Ayogava, Kshatta, and Chandala; by
a Vaisya, Magadha, and Vaidehaka; and by a Kshatriya, Suta. But men of the, names, Suta
and Magadha, celebrated in the Puranas, are quite different and of greater merit than either
Brahmans or Kshatriyas. The above kinds of sons are pratiloma, sons begotten by men of
lower on women of higher castes, and originate on account of kings violating all dharmas.
The son begotten by an Ugra on a Nishada woman is called kukkuta and the same is called
Pulkasa, if begotten in the inverse order. The son begotten by an Ambhashtha on a Vaidehaka
woman is named Vaina; the same in the reverse order is called Kusílava. An Ugra begets on a
Kshatta woman as vapaka. These and other sons are of mixed castes .
A Vainya becomes a Rathakara, chariot-maker, by profession. Members of this caste shall
marry among themselves. Both in customs and avocations they shall follow their ancestors.
They may either become Sudras or embrace any other lower castes excepting Chandalas.
The king who guides his subjects in accordance with the above rules will attain to heaven;
otherwise he will fall into the hell. Off springs of mixed castes shall have equal divisions of
inheritance. Partition of inheritance shall be made in accordance with the customs prevalent
in the country, caste, guild (sangha), or the village of the inheritors. 8

LAW OF SUCCESSION IN MANUSMRITI

In the verse of Manu we find the clear connection between ancestral worship and
the law of inheritance. The son born to a person was considered to be competent to offer

8
Kautilya, Ardhasastra pg.240
 P a g e | 14

obligation to offer oblation to the manes of the deceased ancestors and procure salvation to
them. Therefore he was given the right of inheritance to the estate of the deceased ancestors.
Thus the eldest son had the right to inherit, subsequent provisions clearly indicated that all the
sons were entitled to inheritance of the family properties though an additional share is given
to the eldest son for the reason the maintaining of the family traditions and performing
religious ceremonies were entrusted to him. But this right was not recognized in later
periods. He clearly stated that the property of the deceased goes to the son of the daughter
when the deceased person didn’t possess a son.
The right of inheritance is directly related to the right to perform obsequious and
annual ceremonies of the departed ancestor. Amongst brothers begotten from one father, son
of one brother is the son of all and must perform funeral oblations and is equally accepted as
a heir. This will happen when there is no son to one’s brother.
A wife, a son and a servant , these three are declared to have no property. The wealth
which any of them earns belongs to the head of the family only that is to the father. The rule
only meant that wife, son, as also a slave are dependents of the head of he family and they
couldn’t create a valid contract which was binding on the property of the father or
personally. This rule read with the rule which created right to property by birth, in favour of
sons, unmarried daughters, stridhana rights of wife, and the right of sons to demand partition
of joint family property, shows that the right of father over ancestral property was limited
though like every individual he had absolute right over his self-acquired property.9
In his law Manu did not give importance to the married women because in the
marriage the father of the woman has to present some dowry for the man. Thus from then she
was not considered her as a person the family and thus she is not eligible for the inheritance
of the property. In the view of exclusion of the right of inheritance in favour of daughters
and recognition of such right only in the lineal male descendants, the smaller unit consisting
of male members of a joint family who had such rights came to be recognized as
coparcenary. The related laws of this coparcenary are discussed in the book called
Mitakshara.

MITAKSARA ON INHERITANCE

9
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.223
 P a g e | 15

Mitaksara was written by Vijnaneswara. He defines Daya or inheritance as that

wealth which become the property of another, solely due to relation to the owner. In this
mitaksara only the clarification on Manu smriti was written. He divides it into Apratibandha
and Sapratibandha. He holds the view that sons, grandsons and great grandsons acquire right
in the ancestral property by the virtue of birth. Hence, their inheritance is called
Apratibandhadaya. In other cases, a person takes the estate who dies without issue. Then it is
called Sapratibandhadaya (obstructed heritage), because in these cases the life pf the owner
constitutes an obstruction to acquire title to the property.

JANMASVATVAVADA AND UPARAMASVATVAVADA

Thus in Mitaksara system, sons, grandsons and great grandsons acquire right in
ancestral property by birth. In the case of brothers, nephews, father etc. they become entitled
to the property by survivorship. This doctrine is called 'Janmasvatvavada' or the theory of
ownership arising on birth. According to Jimutavahana, the author of Dayabhaga, this means
division of the property of a deceased person. Every kind of inheritance is 'Sapratibandha'. In
his view, right of inheritance arises only after the death of the previous owner. This doctrine
is called 'Uparamasvatvavada' or the theory of ownership arising on death. In this theory son,
grandsons and great-grandsons do not get any right of ownership by birth in the ancestral
property. These two divergent views were propounded while interpreting the text of
Yajnavalkya itself.10
In ancient India, combined family system also was an significant aspect that
governed the law of succession. In such a system father was the head and authority of the
family. In the salvation of the soul through the son gave undue importance to him and
therefore he was considered the first and foremost heir of his father's property. In the absence
of an 'Aurasa' son, according to the Dharmasastra law, various types of subsidiary sons were
accepted as heirs. While suggesting the laws and regulations about inheritance, Manu gives
the definition of twelve types of sons. They are e 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 name a thirteenth one,
called Saudra.

10
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.228
 P a g e | 16

AURASA OR THE LEGITIMATE SON

The legitimate or Aurasa is a son begotten by a man in his own wedded wife.
Manu insists that here the married wife should be of the same caste. Apararka and
Vijnanesvara told that son created in the Anuloma order of marriage, not in the same cast
only, can also be considered as Aurasa.
PUTRIKAPUTRA
The term Putrikaputra has two meaning. In the first it is dissolved as a
Karmadharaya compound. Then it means an appointed daughter. She is then called 'Putrika'
and treated as a son. In the second sense it is dissolved as the son born to the daughter is
'Putrikaputra'.

KSETRAJA
The term 'Ksetra' literarily means a field. In Smriti literature according to the famous
Bijaksetranyaya, it represents a wife. There woman is considered as field and man as seed.
Thus, Ksetraja means a son born through the practice of Niyoga. Manu defines Ksetraja thus
widow according to the rules of Niyoga, when the man himself is either dead or impotent or
suffering from disease.

DATTAKA
Dattaka is also called as Datrima by some Smrtikaras. He is one whom his pater or mommy
gives as a son affectionately to an adopter with water. Some lawgivers stress that he should
be of the same caste of the adopter.
KRTRIMA
Krtrima, otherwise known as Krtimar is a son whom a man makes his son due to his
cleverness and qualities.
GUDHAJA, KANINA AND SAHODHA
The Gudhaja, Kanina and Sahodha are sons based on the unlawful connection
of the mother. Gudhaja is one who is born in a man's house, being not known who his
begetter is. However: this son belongs to him of whose wife he is born. Kanina is one whom
 P a g e | 17

a maiden bears secretly in the house of her father and he belongs to him who marries her
afterwards. Sahodha or Sahodhaja is the son born of a woman who has been pregnant at the
time of marriage, whether that fact was known or unknown to the person marrying her. He
belongs to the person who weds the woman.

KRITAKA
The Krita or Kritaka is one who is bought by a person from his father and mother for making
the boy his son, whether the boy is equal or unequal.

PAUNARBHAVE
The Paunarbhave is a legal son as he is born to a woman who has contracted a second
marriage of her own accord.

SVAYAMDATTA
Svayamdatta is one who having lost his parents or being abandoned by them without proper
cause, gives himself to a man as a son.11

Aurasa is accepted as the first and foremost by all Smrtikaras. Putrikaputra comes second
according to Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya and Brihaspati. But Vasistha, Narada and Visnu
provide the third place to him. Gautama contemplates him only in the tenth place. Ksetraja is
placed in the second place by Gautama, Vasistha, Narada and Visnu while others like
Baudhayana, Yajnavalkya and Brihaspati give third place to him. The change of the place of
Dattaka is especially a notable one. Most of the legislators like Yajnavalkya give a lower
place to him. But Gautama considers him in the third place. Manu, Baudhayana and
Brhaspati place him as fourth in the order.

PROPERTY RIGHT OF SUBSIDIARY SONS

Gautama and Baudhayana categorize, though with a trivial difference, these twelve sons into
Rikthabhajas (who have the right to inherit) and Gotrabhajas (who tolerate the affinity
only).According to Gautama, Aurasa, Ksetraja, Datta, Krtrima, Gudhotpanna and Apaviddha
are Rikthabhaja and the other six are Gotrabhaja.

11
Shodganga, Law of succession in ancient India, p.26
 P a g e | 18

Baudhayana comprises Putrikaputra also in the group of Rikthabhaja. Manu uses

another two terms such as Dayadabandhavas and Adayadabandhavas, which are alike to
Rikthabhaja and Gotrabhaja respectively. The Dayadabandhavas are accepted as heirs and
relatives. The Adayadabandhavas cannot succeed the wealth of their father but they are
relatives. According to him, Aurasa, Ksetraja, Datta, Krtrima, Gudhotpanna and Apaviddha
come under the first group. Kanina, Sahodha, Krita, Paunarbhava, Svayamdatta and Saudra
are included in the second group.
Manu counts thirteen kinds of sons, as well as Saudra. But in the above verses he
refers to 12 types only. The Putrikaputra is not referred to here. The reason may be that he
considers Putrikaputra equal to Aurasa itself. Thus, it seems that Manu's view is alike to that
of Baudhayana who comprises all the seven types in the Rikthabhaja group.

YAJNAVALKYA'S VIEW ON THE LAW OF SUCCESSION

The rank and importance of sons accepted by Yajnavalkya is as follows: 1).
Aurasa,
2). Putrikaputra, 3) Ksetraja, 4). Gudhaja, 5). Kanina, 6). Paunarbhava, 7). Dattaka, 8). Kirta,
9). Krtrima, 10). Svayamdatta, 11). Sahodhaja and 12). Apaviddha. It is to be noted here that
Yajnavalkya does not classify them as Rikthabhajas and Gotrabhajas. According to him, each
of these twelve types of sons takes the wealth of the father and offers Pinda to him in default
of the preceding one. He also stresses that this rule will be effective only if it is certain that
the sons are of the same caste as that of the father.
Visvarupa accepts each of these 12 kinds of sons as 'Rikthabhajas' and
'Pindada' in default of the preceding one. He then adds that if the preceding one exists, all the
other types of sons should be given maintenance in order to avoid the fault of being cruel.
Apararka also accepts the subsidiary sons as heirs in the absence of the preceding one. He
further explains that by 'Adayadabandhava' Manu does not mean that they cannot succeed the
wealth of their father. On the other hand it means that they cannot succeed the wealth of their
father's kinsmen. Dayadabandhavas can take the wealth of their father and of his kinsmen
where as Adayadabandhavas can yield the wealth of the father's wealth only.

VIJNANESVARA'S INTERPRETATION
Vijnanesvara definitely states all without exception have the right of inheriting
their father's estate in the default of the preceding one. He presents a detailed discussion on
 P a g e | 19

the views of ancient legislators like Gautama, Vasistha, Manu and Visnu with regard to the
rights of subsidiary sons. 12
He quotes a verse from Visnu, which stipulates that Kanina,
Gudhotpanna, Sahodha and Paunarbhava have no right either to perform funeral oblation or
to inherit the wealth of his father .Here Vijnanesvara resolve the contradiction by saying that
this passage of Visnu merely denies the right of those sons to a quarter share, if there be the
legitimate issue. But if there be no legitimate son or other preferable claimant, even Kanina
himself may prosper to the whole paternal estate. He further remarks that Manu's statement
on Aurasa's sole heirship of his father's wealth is not a general rule. It must be considered as
applicable to a case where the other sons are disobedient and devoid of good qualities.
He again says that the division of twelve types of sons into two groups like
'Dayadabandhavas' and 'Adayadabandhavas', laid by Manu, is not in a sense of delaying the
second group from the bequest of their father's property. But it must be expanded as
signifying that the first six may take the wealth of their father and of his kinsmen if there is
no nearer heir but the last six cannot succeed to the wealth of their father's kinsmen.
Vijnanesvara explains that Manu's words 'not brothers or parents, but sons are heirs to the
estate of father' purposely affirms the succession of all subsidiary sons other than the Aurasa.
Contradictions in ranking the secondary sons in various texts are also resigned
by Vijnanesvara by proposing reasonable solution. It is specified that the difference in the
order of enumeration of the sons seen in Vasistha must be understood as founded on the
difference of good and bad qualities. Gautama's view of assigning 10th place to Putrikaputra
is reconciled by saying that it is relative to one differing in the Varna. Thus, finally
Vijnanesvara concludes that each of the twelve kinds of sons takes the wealth of the father in
default of the preceding one.13
SUCCESSION TO THE PROPERTY OF A SONLESS PERSON
It is mentioned earlier that the Dharmasutras prescribe certain general rules on
the succession of the estate of a sonless person. But there importance has been given to
Sapindas (agnates), Sakulyas (cognates) and sometimes to the teacher of the deceased. It is
from Manu onwards that daughter, daughter's son and parents enter to the list of heirs.
Apastamba agree to take daughter as an heir, but places her as the last one in the order. On
12
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.230

13
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.231
 P a g e | 20

the other hand, Manu assigns a reasonable place for her among the heirs declaring that one's
daughter is equal to his son. He adds that when she is alive no one can inherit her father's
property. But from the context it appears that by the word 'Duhita' he designates the
appointed daughter. The commentators Manu, like Medhatithi, Kulluka and
Sarvajnanarayana, take Duhita' in the sense of Putrika or appointed daughter.
Moreover, though Manu declares daughter as an heir, further statements given
there show that according to him, the right of inheritance of a Putrika is actually the right of
inheritance of her son. In the subsequent stanza, he explicitly says that the daughter's son, not
the daughter, inherit the wealth of a sonless man and he should offer Pindas to his father as
well as maternal grandfather.
Thus, in short, Manu does not recognize daughter as an heir. It is daughter's son
who inherits the property of the maternal father. It is to be noted here that this practice of
accepting Putrikaputra as an heir was prevelant only among the Namputiri Brahmins of
Malabar, in Kerala. Again, Manu does not present a definite idea on the preference of
succession in the absence of the Aurasa and Putrikaputra. In one context, he says that the
father takes the wealth of a sonless man or sometimes the brothers also. 14
On the failure of the parents, according to Manu, the order of preference of
inheritance goes to Sapindas (those who are connected by the undivided oblation), the
Sakulyas (agnates) the teacher and the pupil. In the absence of all the above mentioned heirs,
according to Manu, the wealth of a Brahmana transfers to other Brahmanas. The wealth of
other Varnas goes to the king.

YAJNAVALKYA'S THEORY ON LAW OF SUCCESSION

As regards the succession of property of a sonless person, Yajnavalkya lays
down more clear and progressive thoughts. He enumerates several classes of heirs in a
regular order. As in many other aspects, here also he agrees with Visnudharmasutra or
Visnusamhita that presents the scheme of inheritance as follows. If a man dies without a male
issue, his wife, daughters, father, mother, brothers, their sons, Gotrajas (agnatic kinsmen)
Bandhus (cognatic relations) a disciple, a fellow student shall inherit his property by
gradation - the next party succeeding in the absence of the previous one. This law is
applicable to persons of the same caste. While explaining this passage the reviewers have put
forward divergent views on several aspects concerning succession and property right. The

14
Shodganga, Law of Succession in Ancient India pg.31
 P a g e | 21

clarification of each word of this passage by the famous commentators like Visvarupa,
Apararka, Vijnanesvara and Mitramisra are discussed below.15

WIFE AS A SUCCESSOR
According to Yajnavalkya, 'Patni', the widow, is first entitled to the succession of the
property of a sonless man. Visvarupa, the earliest commentator of YS, holds that the word
'Patni' in the verse means a wife who is conceiving. He quotes passages from Vasistha and
Gautama to authenticate his view.16 Apararka does not give any explanation to the word
Patni. He accepts the progressive views of Brhaspati who even suggests that the cognates and
agnates may try to get hold the property of the deceased person and so the king should take
steps to punish them and protect the widow. He then quotes Sahkha, Devala and Narada who
prescribe that the wealth of a man dying without male issue goes to his brothers and reconcile
the contradiction.
According to Vijnanesvara 'Patni' here indicates a woman adopted in lawful
marriage, conformably with the etymology of the term as implying a connection with
religious rites. He also points out that though the word is in singular, it indicates the plural
sense. Therefore, if there are several widows, of same or different class, they may partition
the property among them. He quotes Vrddhamanu, Vrddhavisnu, Katyayana and Brihaspati
as authorities in this matter. But the prescriptions of Narada, Manu and Sankha seems to be
opposing to Yajnavalkya's statement. According to Narada, the brothers have the right to
inherit the property of the deceased, though his wife is alive. He prescribes only the
assignment of maintenance to widows. Manu, at the same time, advocates the succession of
the father or of the brother, to the estate of one who has no male offspring. Sahkha declares
the successive right of brothers and both parents and then lastly of the eldest wife.
Vijnanesvara, by means of his skillful interpretation reconciles the contradictions and
substantiates widow’s right to inherit her husband’s estate.
NEGATION OF DHARESVARA'S VIEW
Before presenting his arguments of reconciliation, Vijnanesvara, after a detailed
discussion, refutes the views Dharesvara,( supposed to be King Bhoja by some scholars) who

15
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.233

16
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.240
 P a g e | 22

also has tried to reconcile the conflicting statements mentioned above. According to
Dharesvara, the regulation made by Yajnavalkya regards the widows of a separated brother if
she be concerned of authority for raising up issue to her husband. He quotes passages from
Manu, Gautama, Vasistha and Narada which are supporting his view. He also points out that
the same idea is declared by Yajnavalkya himself in the verse. Dharesvara again argues that
since the wealth of a twice-born man is designed for religious uses, the succession of women
to such property is unfit because they are not competent to the performance of religious
rituals.
But Vijnanesvara refutes these points of reconciliation put forward by
Dharesvara. First of all, says Vijnanesvara, the authority to rise up issue to the husband is
neither specified nor suggested in the statement 'patni duhitarah' in Yajnavalkya Sastra.
Moreover, if solicitation for Niyoga is taken as reason for widow's succession, there ascends
the question whether the appointment to rise up the issue is the reason for widow's succession
or the issue born to her is the cause for it. If the appointment alone be the reason then she has
a right to the estate without having borne a son. If the offspring be the sole cause of her
claim, the wife should not be performed as a successor by Yajnavalkya.
The discrepancy in the interpretation of Dharesvara is also pointed out by
Vijnanesvara. Because by affirming the right of the widow who is solicited for Niyoga, the
right of Ksetraja to succeed the estate of the deceased is virtually affirmed, which had been
already declared earlier.17
CHASTE WIDOW SUCCEEDS
Vijnanesvara concludes that Yajnavalkya is of opinion that a chaste woman should
succeed to the estate of her deceased husband rather than one appointed to rise up issue.
Dharesvara's statement, 'the succession of women to the property of a twice-born is unfit as it
is designed for religious uses, is also refuted by Vijnanesvara. He argues that if everything,
which is wealth, were intended for sacrificial purposes, then Dana, Homa and similar matters
must remain unaccomplished. Moreover sacrifice here signifies religious duty in general still
other purposes of opulence of ratification, which are to be affected by means of wealth, must
remain unaccomplished. So Vijnanesvara states that the word 'sacrifice' import religious duty
in general, and the succession of women to estates is most proper, since they are competent to
the performance of auspicious and conservatory acts.

17
Justice M. Rama Jois, Legal and constitutional history of India pg.234
 P a g e | 23

Another view put forward by Srikara etc. is also seen referred to in this context by
Vijnanesvara. They are of opinion that the widow should take the whole property of her
deceased husband if it is small. But she gets only maintenance if the property is large. Citing
the statements of Manu, Narada and the like Vijnanesvara rejects this view also. He quotes
passages from Haritha and Sankha and substantiates that the denial of the right of a widow to
succeed the whole property of her husband is intended if she is suspected of inconsistency.
Otherwise, she has the right to take the whole property.
Thus Vijnanesvara concludes that it is a settled rule that a wedded wife, being
chaste, takes the whole estate of a man who being separated from his co-heirs and not
subsequently reunited with them, dies leaving no male issue: This detailed discussion
presented by Vijnanesvara shows that the wife's right to succeed to her deceased husband's
estate was acknowledged only after a long struggle extending over centuries. Though
Visnudharmasutra and YS have mentioned widow as the first one in their compact series of
heirs, several later Smriti texts and commentaries prohibited her from inheriting her
husband's wealth. The incident of a merchant who perished in shipwreck referred to in Sakun
Cala makes clear that in the days of Kalidasa the widow did not succeed to the wealth of her
deceased husband. To say shortly, the medieval lawgivers argued two choices to her either
she may resort to Niyoga or take only the maintenance. Vijnanesvara, with proper arguments,
refutes all the opposing views and establishes the proposition that the widow, if chaste, is
entitled to the whole of her deceased sonless husband's wealth. Since the time of Mts almost
all the lawmakers accepted this view.
DAUGHTER ACCEPTED AS A SUCCESSOR
In ancient Indian law, just as the widow, the daughter also had to struggle hard
for recognition as an heir. Even in the absence of brother, she was not considered as a line to
the paternal property. Earlier lawgivers like Gautama, Baudhayana and Vasistha excluded her
from the list of heirs. Apastamba though recognizes, places her as an optional heir
enumerating as the last one in the order: Manu, though he declares daughter is equal to son.
Dauhitra not the daughter, who inherit the wealth of a sonless man. But Yajnavalkya,
following Vrddhavisnu, recognizes her as an heir after the widow. It is to be noted here that
Visvarupa, the earliest commentator of YS, following Manu, holds that by this word
'Duhitarah' Yajnavalkya means the 'Putrika'. He further explains that the plural form is
employed in order to convey that several daughters may be appointed as sons .But Apararka
rejects Visvarupa's explanation stating that Putrika's father cannot be designated as 'Aputra'
 P a g e | 24

because Putrika is equal to Putra. According to Apararka the daughters, who belong to the
same class of the father can only be accepted as heirs.

VIJNANESWARA VIEW ON DAUGHTER’S SUCCESSION

Vijnanesvara presents a more clear and progressive interpretation regarding
daughters heirship. He says that the plural number 'Duhitarah' suggests the equal or unequal
participation of daughters similar or dissimilar by class. That means daughters who are
dissimilar from the parent should also be considered as heirs. Following Katyayana,
Vijnanesvara gives preference to the unmarried daughters. Further he says that the rule
prescribed by Gautama on the inheritance of Stridhana is applicable to the paternal estate
also. So, with a humanitarian consideration, Vijnanesvara states that among married
daughters the indigent one is to be preferred to one who is well-placed. He clearly states that
here the word 'Duhitarah' does not
relate to the appointed daughter because she has been noticed while treating of male issue.
The introduction of Putrika again in this context would be improper: Interpreting the particle
in ' duhitarasca' he says that on failure of daughter, the daughter's son inherits the
property. The interpretation of Mitramisra, the author of Viramitrodaya needs special
mention here. He also recites the interpretation that the 'duhitarah' indicate 'putrika'.
According to him daughters who are not married and who belong to the same class of the
father inherit the estate in the absence of the widow. Here Mitramisra correlates
Yajnavalkya's passage with the customary practice prevalent in Mithila.
PREFERENCE AMONG PARENTS
Parents are not at all referred to as heirs in any of the Dharmasutras by the earlier
lawgivers. It is Manu who first gives them the right to inherit the wealth of a sonless deceased
person. In one place, Manu states that mother takes the wealth of a son who dies issueless:
But in another context he attributes this right to father or brothers. Thus from Manu one
cannot get a definite idea about the preference among the parents. In Visnusmirti the order is
very clear. It states that Yajnavalkya mentions both father and mother as 'Pitarau' and gives
no clue as to who among them is to be preferred if both are alive when their son dies. While
commenting this Apararka merely gives the Vigraha of the word 'Pitarau' saying. But
Visvarupa and Vijnanesvara declare first place for mother. Though a 'Dvandva' compound is
used there, according to Visvarupa, the mother comes first .He quotes authority for this and
 P a g e | 25

argues that according to Manu also father inherits the estate of sonless person only in the
absence of his mother. Vijnanesvara also holds this view and he clearly points out reasons for
accepting the preference of the mother.
He says that 'Pitarau' in YS is an 'Ekasesadvandva' compound and in dissolving
it the mother comes first in order and hence she should be preferred: The second reason
according to him is the mother's nearness to her son. According to him, mother's propinquity
is consequently greatest when compared to the father. As regards father, his paternity is
common, since he may have sons by women of equal rank with himself as well as sons by
wives of the other in inferior classes and his nearness is therefore mediate in comparison to
the mother. Mitramisra is not ready to accept Vijnanesvara's interpretation.
He quotes passages from Katyayana and Visnu and argues that mother succeed the
wealth of her issueless son only in the absence of his father. He also expresses his
disagreement in Vijnanesvara's interpretation of the word 'Pitarau' by Vijnanesvara like this.
The foregoing discussion shows that as regards succession and the right to property
Vijnanesvara has a more favourable consideration towards women. He with ample authority
establishes the right of inheritance of the three categories of women - wife, daughter and
mother. Scholars like Sakuntaladevi who have done deep study on this matter observe that
Vijnanesvara, under the influence, with a view to secularize the law of inheritance in Smriti
tradition effected these regulations.
BROTHERS AND THEIR SONS AS HEIRS
According to Yajnavalkya, on the failure of parents, brothers succeed and on their
failure, their sons inherit. Visvarupa states that the word 'Tatha' in the verse is used to include
half-brothers also. Thus in Visvarupas view both full brothers and half-brothers. (Half-
brothers are the sons of the same father but sprung from a different mother) have the right to
succeed the wealth of a sonless man in the failure of parents. But according to Apararka and
Vijnanesvara among the brothers those of full blood inherit in preference to half-brothers.
The reason is that their propinquity to the deceased is consequently greatest.
Apararka says: Vijnanesvara also have the same idea when he says the full-brothers
take the inheritance in the first instance since those of the half-blood are remote through the
difference of the mothers. If there is no uterine brother, those by different mothers inherit the
estate. On failure of brothers, their sons have the heritage in the order of the respective
brothers. Vijnanesvara insists that if a brother dies leaving no male issue and the estate has
consequently devolved on his brothers indifferently, if anyone of them die before partition of
 P a g e | 26

their brothers estate takes place, his sons do in that case acquire a title through their father.
Mitramisra also accepts this view.
VIJNANESVARA'S VIEW
Vijnanesvara introduces an absolutely different meaning to the term Sapinda. In the
Vivahaprakarana of Acharadhyaya he explains that Sapinda means connection through
particles of the same body. In support of his view he quotes passages from Vedic texts,
Dharmasutras and Upanisads. He again explains that if the connection by funeral oblation
only is taken into consideration the maternal ascents and descents do not come under the
purview of Sapinda. So he abandoned the theory of connection through rice-ball offering and
accepted the theory of transmition of constituent atoms: According to Vijnanesvara this
Sapindas are of two types
(1) Samanagotrajas - those who sprung from the same family
(2) Bhinnagotrajas - those who sprung from a different family.
Bhinnagotrajas are designated as Bandhus. If there be none such, like paternal grandmother
and Sapindas of Samanagotra, the succession devolves on kindred connected by libations of
water . The term Samanodaka denotes a remoter degree of kindred in connection with
impurity and funeral rites. Vijnanesvara states Samanodaka relationship extends to the
fourteenth degree or else as far as limits of knowledge as to birth and name extend.
According to Mitramisra, Gotraja means nearness due to Sapinda or Sakulya. It is stated
earlier that in ancient Indian law there were two traditions as far as the law of succession is
concerned. The Dayabhaga tradition accepted religious efficacy of Pindas as the determining
principle of succession. But the Mitaksara, giving a new interpretation to 'Sapinda' took
nearness of blood as the determining factor of inheritance. In several aspects, The modem
Hindu succession law follows Vijnanesvara's concepts and theories in this regard.

THE HEIRS OF STRIDHANA

The devolution of the property of a woman is different from that of the property of
a male. Daughters were always excluded from succeeding the estate of a father if he has son.
In mothers property the case is different. Several lawgivers like Manu and Sankha-Likhita
prescribe that it should be divided equally among the sons and daughters. But Yajnavalkya
stipulates that daughters are the first heirs of the Stridhana of their mother. While dealing
with the topic of partition, he declares that mother's property first goes to her daughters; on
the failure of them, the male issues inherit it. The reason for such a regulation is explained by
 P a g e | 27

Vijnanesvara thus: "the woman's property goes to her daughters because portions of her
abound
in her female children; and the father's estate goes to his sons, because portions of him
abound in his male children. When sons were allowed to exclude daughters in inheritance to
the father's estate daughters were preferred as heirs to Stridhana. Yajnavalkya again states
that the Stridhan of a mother goes to the daughters first. While interpreting this passage
Vijnanesvara gives a more detailed explanation to this matter. According to him, in this
context, by the word 'duhitr' granddaughters are signified because the immediate female
descendants, daughters, are expressly mentioned earlier. Their preference is given to
unmarried daughters. In their
absence married daughters should inherit. Among them also, in the case of competition
between those are provided and those are unprovided, the unprovided take the succession
first.18

On failure of all daughters, the granddaughters in the female line should take it. In the
absence of daughters and grant daughters, the sons of the daughters inherit. On default of all
these heirs, the male issue succeeds. Another notable point is that the heirs to Stridhana are
different according to the form of the marriage. The property of a childless woman who has
become a wife by any of the four forms of marriage denominated like Brahma, Arsa, Daiva
and Prajapatya, belong in the first place to her husband. On failure of him, it goes to his
nearest relatives allied by funeral oblations. In the four other forms of marriage, Asura,
Gandharva, Raksasa, and Paisaca, the Stridhana of a childless woman goes to her parents.

Vijnanesvara says that in the case bridal fee the rules are different. It devolves first on the fill-
brothers and then on the mother. All these topics discussed here in connection with Stridhana
have contemporary relevance because in modem society also dowry system is a social
problem. In spite of the formation of 'Dowry Prohibition Act' and the work of the social
reformers, the system has continued to percolate to all levels, even to sections where it did
not earlier prevail. The favorable and progressive views laid down by Yajnavalkya and
Vijnanesvara have been not filly acknowledged by the modem Hindu law. All the property
which a woman may have

18
Shodganga, Law of Succession in Ancient India pg.45
 P a g e | 28

acquired by inheritance or partition were included by Stridhana. But this view was totally
discarded by the courts.
Mitaksara digest, Vijnanesvara, tried to declare all property of woman, including
landed property, as Stridhana and to grant her as extensive rights as possible. But such a
broad interpretation of the concept of Stridhana would have shaken the whole north Indian
family and inheritance system, for, since Stridhana was normally bequeathed to the daughters
who left
the Gotra of the father, it would have meant that parts of the family land would have gone
into the hands of another clan after the death of the women. This is why most legislators
reject
this broad interpretation of the concept of Stridhana and limit it to the movable property of
the woman or say that women have the right of disposal only on movable property." While
discussing the topic woman's property Yajnavalkya occasionally adds rules, concerning
property related to a betrothed maiden also. First of all he regulates that "for detaining a
damsel, after affiancing her, the offender should be fined, and should make good the
expenditure together with interest". Vijnanesvara points out that this is applicable only if
there is no sufficient motive for retracting the engagement. If there be sufficient cause, he
shall not be fined as it is ruled by Yajnavalkya himself that the damsel, though betrothed,
may be withheld, if a preferable suitor presents himself. But whatever has been expended, on
account of the espousals, by the bridegroom for the gratification of his own or the damsel's
relations, must be repaid in full, with interest by the affiances to the bridegroom. It is also
prescribed there that if a girl dies after the betrothal the bridegroom is allowed to take back
the gifts, which he had presented, paying the charges of both sides.

DISINHERITANCE
According to ancient 'Indian law, certain categories of persons are excluded from inheritance.
Yajnavalkya says "an impotent person, an outcast, and his issue, one lame, a mad man, an
idiot, a blind man, and a person afflicted with an incurable disease must be maintained,
because they are excluded from inheritance". This shows that there is physical as well as
mental faults which
make one ineligible to inheritance. Vijnanesvara adds that if the defect be removed by
medicaments or other means at a period subsequent to partition the right of succession take
 P a g e | 29

effect: He also ordains that this is common to wife, daughter and mother. 19

From the above discussion, it is clear that the law of succession is one of the most
important topics in the ancient Indian legal system. In this system, without making a will, the
law prescribes how the property of a deceased person is to be distributed among his relations.
The Dharmasutras, Smritis, later commentaries and Nibandhas, all deal this subject with due
importance. All these texts accept Aurasa or legitimate son as the first and foremost among
the heirs. In the absence of an Aurasa the right of inheritance goes to various subsidiary sons
in
preference of order. The Smriti authors like Manu and Yajnavalakya, Vijnanesvara also,
enumerated eleven or twelve types of subsidiary sons as heirs to the property of a deceased
person. But later commentators and Nibandhakaras refuted this view and they proclaimed
that Aurasa and Dattaka can only be admitted as heirs. The major schools, Mitaksara and
Dayabhaga, and the sub-schools of Mitaksara hold divergence opinion regarding the right of
inheritance of Dattaka or adopted son.20

19
Shodganga, Law of Succession in Ancient India pg.50

20
Shodganga, Law of Succession in Ancient India pg.61
 P a g e | 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 KAUTILYA’S ARTHASASTRA -
https://csboa.com/eBooks/Arthashastra_of_Chanakya_-_English.pdf
 LAW OF SUCCESSION IN ANCIENT INDIA -
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/136006/8/08_chapter
%20ii.pdf
 LEGAL AND CONSITUTIONAL HISTORY OF INDIA by Justice M. Rama Jois
 MANUSMRITI by Dr. R. G. Chaturvedi
P a g e | 31