Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 52
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Stephen Meredyth Edwardes, Krishnaswami Aiyangar
Publisher: Swati Publications
View full book text
________________
28
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ FEBRUARY, 1923
We must now consider the effects of the anuloma and pratiloma principles on the law of inheritance. As far as the present writer has been able to trace, the progeny of a pratiloma marriage was absolutely excluded from the succession'. Even on failure of sons of every category Manu seems to rule out the possibility of a son by pratiloma taking any share in his father's estate. Vishnu is more explicit. After defining the twelve categories of sons, he declares that children begotten (by husbands of inferior caste) on women of a higher caste receive no share : SBE., VII, § 37. At best he allows them maintenance. He thus, it appears, excludes them even from the twelfth and lowest category of sons who may inherit : cf. $ 27.
The anuloma sons on the other hand all took shares in the inheritance, but those shares were graded in accordance with their rank. This principle was entirely different from that which regulated succession among the twelve categories, each of which excluded all the grades below it. Some idea of the complications which could arise (and in practice must have arisen) out of this system may be gathered from the fact that in cach category the anuloma principle could operate ; so that when it had been decided to which category sons belonged it might next be necessary to decide how they were to share if their mothers were not of the same status. Manu explains his principle by two examples. He takes the case of a Brâhmana who has had four wives, a Brahman(i), a Kshatriya, a Vaisya and a Sudra wife, and says the estate may be divided in two ways -
1.
11 1. To the Brahmani's son .. 'one most excellent share
+ 3 shares of the remainder .. 4 shares. 2., , Kshatriya wife's son...: 2
» 3. Vaisya 4. , , Sudra
» » » .. 1 share.
Total 71 shares.
10 shares. The most excellent share" is not defined. It may not have been very large. It will be noticed that, whichever method of partition was adopted, the Brahmani's son got six-fifteenths and the Vaisya wife's son three-fifteenths. By method I the Kshatriya wife's son got half a fifteenth more and the Súdra wife's son so much less than by method II. It may be suggested that the most excellent share' was one-fourth of a share only, or in modern parlance a sawdia. If this conjecture could be proved the remainder was very nearly the whole estate. It remains to notice the apparently later rules which, in accord with the prohibition of a Brahman's marriage with a Sudra woman, debar their son from taking more than a tenth share even when he is an only son, and then lay it down that no son by a Sûdra mother, whatever his father's caste, shall inherit as of right but may take whatever his father may give him : Manu, IX, 86 154 & 155.10
J. Jolly in his Recht und Sitte, p. 62, does not bring this point out at all clearly. Further he does not mention anuloma or the effects of it on the law of inheritance. In his translation of Brihaspati (SBE. XXXIII), p. 374, 927 he has" Let Brahmans, Kshatriya, Valayas, and sadras, bogotton in order by Brahman, take four, three, two shares, and one share in succession." This means : "Let the son bogotton on a Brahman wife, the son begotten on. Kshatriya wife, and so on) by a Brahman, take four, three etc."; just Manu's ruler IL
10 Manu, & IX, deals somewhat briefly with the wholo question. Vishnu ampliflon his doctrine. adopting his method II, and not only never excluding the Sadra wife's son but actually allowing him to take half the estate when he is the only son: XVIII, 98 1 to 40.
