WYAVASTEIA-DARPANA. 792 “The mother's sister, the maternal uncle's wife, the paternal uncle's wife, the father's sister, the mother-in-law, and the wife of an elder brother, are declared similar to mothers. If they leave no issue of their bodies, nor son, nor daughter's son, nor son of those persons, the sister's son and the rest shall take their property.” The term ‘son’ in this text of Wrihashpati is intended to propound the right of succession by the son of a rival wife; otherwise, it is useless to consider it as a discriminative of “Ourasa,” meaning of itself ‘legitimate issue;’ and it would also follow that the younger brother of the woman's husband and the rest would have a right to succeed, notwithstanding the existence of the son of a rival wife.-See W. Dá. Kra. Sang, pp. 48,49. In expounding the text of Vrihashpati, above cited, Jimistavāhana says: “Both son and daughter are here signified by the terms “ issue of the body.” For they bar every other claimant. By ‘son’ is meant the child of a rival wife. For a passage of law expresses, “If among all the wives of the same husband, one bring forth a male child, Manu has declared them all, by means of that son to be mothers of male issue.” Nor is the term ‘son’ an epithet of ‘issue of the body:" for it would be superfluous; and the sister's son and other remote heir would have the right of succession, though a son of a contemporary wife be living. If there be no legitimate son or daughter,” nor a son of a rival wife, the right of succession devolves on the daughter's son :” (Coleb. Da'. bha', p. 96.)t And thus he holds that the son of a rival wife is entitled in preference to the daughter's son. Srikrishna Torkālankāra, however, has laid down that the son of a rival wife is entitled to inherit after a daughter's son, son's son, and son's grandson in the male linet Raghunandana, Jagannātha Tarkapanchánana, and the rest, have also done the same; and the doctrine laid down by these is most prevalent as well as consistent; for Manu says: “Between a son's son and the son of a daughter there is no difference in law; since their father and mother both sprung from the body of the same man,” and accordingly a daughter's son is by reason of consanguinity preferable to the son of a rival wife.
- In Colebrooke's translation of the Dáyabhāga the words ‘nor a grandson in the male line' are inserted between the words daughter' and the son of a rival wife.' But I do not find such reading in any of the editions of the original. The reading to be found in the printed copies of the Dáyabhāya in the Sanskrit, is “If there be no legitimate son and daughter of the body, nor a son of a rival wife.” Maheshwara has rejected the words ‘nor a grandson' as unnessary, and improperly introduced ; and Raghunandana has altogether omitted them. Mr. Colebrooke, after citing Maheshwara and Raghunandana, seems by his silence to have approved of the reading adopted by them. The words in question have not therefore been inserted here, being as they are quite unnecessary, and because the only result of their insertion would be that the daughter's son would be entitled to succeed after the legitimate son and daughter of the body, the son's :* the son of a rival wife; but such order of succession is not also respected for reasons already
f. This passage is censured by &ákrishna, who shows, very satisfactory reasoning, that the daughter's son ought to inherit before the son of a contemporar *農 considers ఫి:్య of the text to be questionable; and Maheshwara pronounces it to be spurious; he also rejects the words "nor * grandson" as unnecessary and improperly introduced in this place. Raghunandana, in the Dáyatattwa Sopying Jimétavāhana's argument, omits this passage altogether; and the author of the Virmitroyaya has substituted one of quito different import.—Coleb. Dhao, bha', pp. 96.
- Seo Sri-krishna's Commentary on the Dáyabkága, Sans. p. 118. W. Daf. Kra. Sang. p. 48.
