Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. First, as to the word kula. That word and the word gotra are sometimes synonymous. There is a distinction in point of-kula and gotra as between a Hindu male and a Hindu female.

27. In the case of a male he is regarded as an independent personality, with the ancestors of the father re-born and reproduced in him. So again, the son, according to the Shastras, is his own father reproduced by his mother. Hence the mother is called Jay a, she who reproduces her own husband in the form of a son (The ancestors of a man are born again in the form of a son to him.) The Mit: 3rd Edn. By Moghe (The Mit : Moghe's 3rd Edn. P. 15). "She becomes her husband's generator by whom the husband is reborn.". Though by birth he obtains the kula or gotra of his father, yet the kula or gotra is his without reference to the father's. It is the same with his kula or gotra as with his interest in ancestral property. That interest he acquires by birth independently of his father. To find out his kula or gotra, the father is not the guide or door: As Nilakantha says in the Vyavahara Mayukha in the Chapter on Adoption: " Paternity and Sapindaship are not necessarily coextensive, so that the absence of the one might lead to the absence of the other, " (Mandlik's Hindu Law, p. 63, lines 30 and 31). It is otherwise in the case of a female. The general rule as to a woman is that she has no independence, in whatever state she be, whether married or unmarried. She is dependent on her husband, if married; on her father, if unmarried. Her right to acquire property and to succession has been a much debated question in Hindu Law and was established gradually and by stages as an exception to the general rule as to her complete state of dependence. Yajnyavalkya says in Verse No. 85 in the section on Rituals that a woman can never be independent-and the Mitakshara accepts that as the rule. She is dependent on the father before marriage, on the husband after it:(See p. 23 of the 3rd Edn., of Moghe's publication of the Mitakshara.) Answering the question- " What debts of her husband is a woman liable to pay " 1- Vijnaneshwara in the Chapter on Debts points out what those debts are and says :-"This does not mean that a woman I' cannot possess property. All it shows is her dependence". And that, he continues, he will explain more fully in dealing with partition (p. 139.) On the subject of partition, he Td reiterates the view that the fact of a woman owning wealth is not inconsistent with her dependence (pp.142 and 143 of Ni Moghe's Edition). In establishing the right of a widow to the inherit her husband's property he expresses the same view. * In commenting on Yajnyavalkya's text that the King shall not entertain any litigation as between a husband and his wife,-Vijnaneshwara points out the exceptions to that rule and says:-"As to women, adjudication (by the King) is allowed in the case of the wives of milkmen, liquor-sellers and the like on account of their independence. From that it is to be understood that in the case of other women of families, there can be no entertaining of disputes, while their husbands are alive, owing to their dependence" (p. 132.)

28. If a woman is dependent, then comes the question- What is her kula or gotra-i. e., her family ? On whom is she dependent for that ? This has been a moot question among the Stnriti writers, and it is discussed by Vijnaneshwara in the section on Rituals (Achara) of the Mitakshara. (See p. 76 of the 3rd Edn. of the Mitakshara published by Bapu Shastri Moghe.) Vijnaneshwara points out there, that there are two divergent views on the subject-one view is that a married woman's gotra is that of her husband; the other that it is the gotra of her father. Vijnaneshwara reconciles these two views by explaining that the former view applies to a woman who has been married according to one of the approved forms; and that the latter applies to one married according to one of the inferior rites.

29. As to an unmarried woman, her gotra is that of her father. (See a Smriti of Paithinasi cited by Apararka; the Anandashrama Series Edn. p. 908).

30. It follows from this that to ascertain the kula or gotra of a woman, she must be treated as being dependent upon, subrdinate to, and identified with either her husband or for according as she is married or unmarried. This mode of ascertainment is adopted in her case, not in the case. In his case, he holds his kula or gotra in his r right. In her case, she has none except with dependence upon her husband or her father dies, it is nowhere said that to ascertain his heirs we must enter the family of another person with that person as the door-The deceased man is himself the door and the heirs are pointed out by himself. Not so in the case of a woman dying childless.

33. Now, the word Sakulyas used in Brihaspati's text is a compound of two words, samana (which means " the same ") and kula, (which means " family"). The Mayukha brings the sister in as a gotraja sapinda, because she is of the same kula or family as her brother. It expressly says that her right is founded on her gotrajatva, i. e., the fact of her birth in the gotra or family of her brother.

34. That, again, is not the only place where Nilakantha in the Mayukha establishes the sister as a member of her brother's kula for the purposes of inheritance. In the concluding portion of his Chapter on Reunion, he cites a text of Madana and a of Brihaspati which ordain that, under certain specified circumstances, the sister shall take the share of her brother, when he has died as a reunited coparcener. (The Mayukha : Rao Saheb Mandlik's Edn., p. 58. See also Sakharam Sadashiv Adhikari v. Sitabai (1879) I.L.R. 3 Bom. p. 353, at p. 362