Χ inheritance by Srikarāchārīya, the Madana-pdrijāta”. The Smriti-séra or at full length Smrityartha-săra by Sridhardchdiriya, the Smriti-sāra or Smriti-samuchchaya by Harizathopédhysiva. and the Dwoita-parishishta by Keshava Misra. In the Marhatta school (or in the province of IBombay) preference is given to the Wyavahára-mayokha of Nilakanthat, the Nirnaya-sindhut. the Hemddriš, the Vyavahára-kowstubha and Parasurdimadhava. The works of paramount authority in the Drávira school (that is in the territories dependant on the Government of Madras) are the Mādhviyal, the Smriti-chandriká", and the Saraswati-vilása.” These are the law tracts specially followed by the last three schools on account of their adopting certain doctrines that are inculcated by those books but have no place in the Mitsikshard, which in all other points is respected as the main authorsty of all those schools of law. In Orissa too, which is now connected with the province of Bengal, the Mitdikshard is of paramount authority, together with which are received the works of Shambhokara Báype, and Udayakara Bóipei. Bengal Proper has alone taken for its chief guide in matters of inheritanceff the Pāyabhāga of Jāmūtavāhana, which is on almost every disputed point opposite to the Mitäksharts: its authority is supreme. This celebrated treatise forms a part of his digest termed Dharmaratnațț. Jìmútaváhana therefore may be styled the founder of the Bengal school. The argu
- This treatise was composed by Vāreshwara Bhatea, and is named in honor of Madanapála, a prince of the Jät race, who reigned at Kāshtha-nagara or Digh, and who is apparently the same who gives title to the Madana-vinoda dated in the 15th century of the Sambat Era (Coleb. Dig. pre. xvii, & Dá. Bhá. pre. xi.)
Sir William Macnaghten calls the author Madanopédhyāya. This work chiefly treats of échdira and ryavahár, kindas ; and also prevails in the Marhatta country. 始 + This is the sixth of the twelve treatises by the same author all bearing the same title Mayokha, and the whole is designatcd collectively the Bhagavat-bkāshkara. Thee other cleven treatises of this author treat of religious duties, rules of conduct, expiation, &c. t By Kamatākara Bhatto. Kishikara. It was written 246 years ago. It treats principally of achóra and -Prosyaschieta, touching incidentally only on questions of a legal nature. This work is of considerable authority at Benares, as well as amongst the Marhattahs. § By Hemadri Bhatta Kashikara. This is a work of antiquity : it contains twelve divisions, and treats of all subjects and is respected in many of the schools. || See ante, p. viii.
- | By Devdinanda Bhatta - “This excellent treatise on judicature in of great and almost paramount authority, as I air. informed, in the countries occupied by the Hindu nations of Drávira, Toilanga, and Carnata, inhabiting the greatest part of the Peninsula or Dekhin.” Note by Colebrooke to his preface to the Dáyabhūga, p. iv.
零
- This is a general digest attributed to Pratāparudra Deva Mahārāja, one of the princes of the Kakatya family, who established themselves to the north of the Crishna, where they fixed their seat of government, which, extending itself by conquest, became the second empire to the southward. This second, comprehends, as it does, the territories now belonging to Hyderabad, the Northern Circars, a considerable pertion of the Carnatie, and, generally speaking, the whole of the countries, of which the Toilanga is at present the spoken language. This work, probably composed by his direction. became the standard law book of his dominions. See Str. H. L. pre. pp. xvi. xvii.
++ It is indeed in this branch of the law that one would find a great difference in doctrine. †: Jimatavāhana is said to have reigned on the throne of Shålivāhana. He is probably the same with Jāmūtaketu, a prince of the race of Silara who reigned at Tagara ; and he is mentioned in an ancient and authentic inscription found at - 蔓 snlset. (vide Asiatic Rosgarches, vol. i. pp. 857 & 361.) “It was an obvious conjecture that the name of this prince had been fixed to a treatise of law composed perhaps under his patronage and by his directions. That however is not the opinion of the learned in Bengal, who are more inclined to suppose, that thc author really bore the name which is affixed to his work, and was a professed lawyer who performed the functions of judge and legal adviser to one of the most celebrated of the IHindu sovereigns of Bengal. No evidence, however, has been adduced in support of this opinion ; and the period when this author flourished is therefore cntirely uncertain.” Colcb. D&.. l»há. pre. PP, xi, xíi. இ
