VYAVASTHA. DARPANA 349 alone been the cause of succession, many more, who also 'confer benefits, would have been entitled to inherit. It appears that, in ancient times, the daughter's son, unless he were a puttrikā-puttra (see page 151,) was not admitted as an heir. Vicxa3weshwara, the head of the Benares school, not finding clearly the title of the daughter's son recognised in the text of J A cnyavalkya, has, in his Mātākehará, which is a commentary on the institutes of that sage, recognised only the right of the son of the proprietor's own daughter, deducing it from the particle 5 also in the text 136, Ch. II. and quoting in corroboration thereof the text of Vishnu. (See p. 242). The followers of the Mithilá school assort that the daughter's son is entitled to the heritage after the whole of the heirs enum: sted in the text of J Agnxavalrva, and the several other texts, that is to say, they indirectly y his title to inherit, inasmuch as a series of heirs is recounted ending with the king whose failure never occurs. The author of Viradachintámani only has, on the ground of Vare: :arrs text, recognised the right of the son of the proprietor's own daughter after succession c3, thë Jớwu tava irana, the author of Dayabhága, not finding the heritable right ஒn of the sons of the father's daughter, grandfather's daughter, and great grandfather's dischter expressly recognised by any text, has, on the ground of benefits conferred, deduced it. the two following texts of MANu. Thus: “On failure of the heirs of the father dow, **şthe great grandson, it must be understood that the succession devolves on the father's le in like manner as it descends to the owner's daughter's son. The succesຮioງູ. of the grandfather's and great grandfather's lineal descendants, including the daughter's sor unust be understood in a similar manner, according to the proximity of the funeral offering :
- r * *
sinteștiểreason stated in the text, “for even the son of a daughter delivers him in the next world like the son of a son, is equally applicable; and his father's or grandfather's daughter's son, „liko iiis own daughter's son, transports his manes over the abyss, by offering oblations of which he may partake. Accordingly MANU has not separately propounded their right of inheritance: for they are comprehended under the two passages, “to three must libations of water be made,’ &c. an.*.* to the nearest kinsman (Sapinda) the inheritance next belongs.’ Hence it appears to be the of the said author that the son of the proprietor's own daughter, and the sons of the das onters of his father, grandfather, and great grandfather only, are entitled to inherit, and not ...the oon of the daughter of any other relative, as otherwise he would have expressly or even implicitly recognised his title. On the contrary, being apprehensive lest the scholars be dissatisfied with his declaring the title even of those persons whom he, on the ground of benefits, has enumerated in the order of succession, he says: “If the learned be yet unsatisfied, this doctrine may be derived from the express passages of law. Still the same interpretation of both texts (of Masu) must be assumed.” (See Coleb. Dá. bhá. p. 228). RaGErd*UNDaxa also has recognised the heritable right of the sons of daughters of the said three ancestors only. What has been declared by the author of Dáyakramasangraha is, however, respected and followed by the pandits and the courts of justice. But the opinion of the author of Póvádabhangárnava, as above quoted, does not seem to be supported.
