Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. In the first place, sapinda relationship being constituted, according to his doctrine, by blood, and not by the eiSeacy of funeral oblations, the sister is a sapinda of her brother. So far both the Mitakshara and'the Vyavahara Mayukha agree.

24. The next question is whether she can be regarded as a sagotra sapinda of her brother, because Vijnaneshwara states that, after the grandmother, the samanagotra (which is the same as sagotra) sapindas of the deceased inherit-i. e., those who share the same gotra as the deceased.

25. According to the Hindu Shastras, a woman by marriage in (the approved form loses the gotra of her birth and acquires that of her husband. Accepting this view, Nilakantha, the author of the Vyavahara Mayukha, observes that a sister, if she is married, cannot be treated as a sagotra sapinda of her brother, i. e., as being of the same gotra as his. But he brings her in immediately after the grandmother in the line of heirs upon other grounds. One of those grounds is based on the text of Manu that " whoever is the nearest sapinda, his should be the property." This ground, as we have above pointed out, forms the doctrine of the Mitakshara also -- in fact Nilakantha merely follows the Mitakshara in that respect. The second ground assigned by Nilakantha for the place assigned by him to a sister in the line of heirs is that under Yajnyavalkya's text giving the order of heirs as to obstructed succession, gotrajas-i. e., those born in the gotra of the propositus-inherit in default of brother's sons ; and Nilakantha argues that a sister is a gotraja of her brothers, because she is born in her brother's" gotra Vijnaneshwara, on the other hand, in his exposition of Yajnyavalkya's text, explains that in default of brother's sons, samana gotrajas, i. e., those having the same gotra as that of the propositus, are entitled to inherit.

26. That being Vijnaneshwara's explanation, to warrant the introduction of the sister of a propositus in the line of heirs immediately after the paternal grandmother, under the Mitakshara law, we must make out that, in the opinion of Vijnaneshwara, she can be ranked among the sagotra sapindas of her brother-that is, that she possesses the same gotra as his, notwithstanding that by marriage she has acquired the gotra of her husband.

27. Vijnaneshwara points out in the 10th Chapter on "Funeral Ceremonies," (Shraddha Prakaranam) in the Section on " Rituals" (Achara) of the Mitakshara (Page 76 of Bapu Shastri Moghe's publication : 3rd Edition) that there are texts to be found, some supporting the view that the death ceremonies of a married woman should be performed by the members of her husband's gotra and others maintaining that they should be performed by her relations in the gotra of her birth. He cites a text, upholding the former view. Translated into English, it is as follows :--

By marriage, after the seven steps, a woman loses her own gotra; her funeral oblation and other ceremonies should be performed by the gotra of her husband.

28. Then he cites a text to the contrary. It is as follows :-

(The death ceremonies) should not be performed by the members of (her) husband's gotra, setting aside the gotra of her father ; by birth and in death the family of a woman is her father's.

29. Vijnaneshwara reconciles these two apparently contrary views in this wise. Where a woman was married according to the Asura or the like inferior forms of marriage, or where she was married with the special object that a son born of her should be treated as the son of her father, her death ceremonies should be performed by her father's gotra, the reason being that, in the case of such marriages, there is no giving away of the girl by the parents to the husband and the woman, notwithstanding her marriage, continues to belong to her father's gotra or family. Where the marriage was according to the approved, that is, the Brahma or the like form, her death ceremonies may be performed either by her husband's gotra or her father's-it is left to. option (vikalpa). That is, she may be treated as if she were of her father's gotra and her death ceremonies may be performed by the members of his family. It would appear from this discussion by Vijnaneshwara that he did not think that a married woman was entirely deprived of her father's gotra by her marriage in the approved form. If that is so, it will not be inconsistent with his theory to hold that a sister shares in a way the gotra of her brother, even though she be married in the approved form; and it is not unreasonable, on Vijnaneshwara's showing, to infer that she may be deemed to be a sagotra sapinda of her brother.