Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

P
R O
J E
C T
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA
TITLE
Laws of Inheritance in Ancient India
SUBJECT
HISTORY
NAME OF THE FACULTY

DR. VISHWACHANDRA NATH MADASU
NAME- AISHANI CHAKRABORTY
ROLL NO. - 19LLB118
SEMESTER- 1ST
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.
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. OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT
15. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
CONTENTS UNDER THE BODY OF THE PROJECT-
1. UNDERSTANDING ARTHASHASTRA
2. MAIN SOURCE OF MAURYAN HISTORY
3. CONTROVERSY REGARDING ITS AUTHORSHIP
4. ESSENTIALS

5. LAND REFORMS
6. KING AND KING’S DUTY
7. ECONOMIC IDEAS
8. ECONOMIC ADMINISTRATION
9. AUDIT
10. ACCOUNTABILITY
11. KAUTILYA ON CREATION AND PRESERVATION OF WEALTH
12. PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATING JUSTICE

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.

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 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.
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. 37 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 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.
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.
According to Baudhayana, in the absence of other heirs

the estate goes to the 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. In default of all these, the King should take it. He should
donate that property to the persons deeply versed in the three
Vedas.
Without different beneficiaries, the bequest goes to the
relatives having a place with a similar family line in their
nonappearance, to the relatives having a place with a similar family line in their nonattendance,
the educator who had been similar to a
father to the perished, or an understudy or administering minister of the
perished may take it; and in their nonattendance, the ruler—however let him give that property to
people profoundly versed in the three Vedas. The lord himself, nonetheless, ought to 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.
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.
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.
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'
and treated as a child. In the second sense it is
disintegrated as a Tatpurusa compound. In this case, the child bom 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
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.'
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.
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
12) Apaviddha.
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 takes 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
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 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.
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.
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.
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 clearer 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 girl’s 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
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
(2) Bhinnagotrajas - the individuals who sprung from an alternate family. 1
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,
1
article

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.2
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
2
supra.

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 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 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.
Woman's right on her Stridhana
What dominion a woman has on her Stridhana is also a

matter to be discussed. Yajnavalkya prescribe that a husband is
not liable to restore the property of his wife taken by him in a
famine, or for the performance of a duty, or during illness, or
while under restraint.
Quoting Manu, he adds that no other
person, kinsman or heir, except her husband, may take her
property in her life-time. If any one take their goods in their
life-time a virtuous king should chastise by mflicting the
punishment of theftunder restraint.
Yajnavalkya
and Vijiianesvara accepted the sole ownership right of woman
over her Stridhana which even the husband does not share.
The rules and regulations laid down by Kautilya
regarding women's right to Stridhana are also to be mentioned
here. He says that a man who sells the Stridhana of his wife,
against her will must return it with interest. It is intended to
maintain herself, her children or her daughter-in-laws in cases
where the husband has left home without making provision for
them. As prescribed by Yajnavalkya, here also the husband is
allowed to take it in special cases only. Nomially the husband
cannot take his wife's Stridhana with out her permission.

The Heirs of Stridhana
Generally 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
Yajiiavalkya 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 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.".
Their preference is given to unmarried daughters. In them 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.
On failure of all daughters, the granddaughters in the female line should take it. In the absence of
daughters and granddaughters, 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.
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. 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 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.

CHAPTER VI. 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 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.3
3
Kautilya’s Arthashastra

BIBLIOGRAPHY-
1. KING, GOVERNANCE, AND LAW IN ANCIENT INDIA, BY- PATRICK OLIVELLE

(2013).
2. ANCIENT INDIA S.CHAND BY- V.D. MAHAJAN 2017(REPRINT)
3. INDIAN HISTORY BY- S.R. MYNENI 2015 (PRINT) PUBLISHER-ALLAHBAD
AGENCY
4. https://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/kautilya.asp.
5. https://www.ancient.eu/Arthashastra/.
6. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1019423.pdf.

.

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NAME OF THE FACULTY

NAME- AISHANI CHAKRABORTY

ROLL NO. - 19LLB118

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 1

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 2

CONTENTS UNDER THE BODY OF THE PROJECT-

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 3

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 4

SCOPE OF THE STUDY-

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY-

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE-

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 5

Inheritance and Ancestral Worship

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 6

Origin of Private Property and Law of Inheritance

Inheritance and Ancestral Worship

The Law of Inheritance in Dharmasutras

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 7

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 8

According to Baudhayana, in the absence of other heirs

relatives having a place with a similar family line in their

father to the perished, or an understudy or administering minister of the

INTRODUCTION TO ANCIENT INDIA

Twelve Kinds of Sons

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 10

the vast majority of the ancient lawgivers. They are

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

Aurasa or the Legitimate Son

Baudhayana incorporates Putrikaputra additionally in the gathering of Rikthabhaja.

Manu utilizes another two terms, for example, Dayadabandhavas furthermore,

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

It is to be noted here that Yajiiavalkya doesn't characterize them as Rikthabhajas and

Apararka likewise acknowledges the backup children as beneficiaries in the nonappearance of

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

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 15

Succession to the Property of a Sonless Person

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 16

Yajnavalkya's Scheme of Inheritance

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

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 17

Refutation of Dharesvara's View

Before showing his contentions of compromise, Vijiianesvara, after a definite discourse,

Be that as it may, Vijiianesvara refiites these purposes of compromise set forward by

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 18

The irregularity in the elucidation of Dharesvara is likewise brought up by Vijiianesvara. Since

Vijnanesvara on Daughter's Heirship

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 19

Brothers and their Sons as Heirs

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

As indicated by Vijiianesvara this Sapindas are of two sorts

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

(2) Bhinnagotrajas - the individuals who sprung from an alternate family. 1

The Succession of the Property of a Hermit

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 21

Succession to a Re-united Person

LAW OF INHERITANCE IN ANCIENT INDIA Page 22