VYAVASTHA”-DARPANA 259 This is the most celebrated of the glosses on the Dáyabhāga of Ji'au ravatiana. It is of great Remarks, authority in Bengal, and is rankéd in general estimation next after the Dáyabhāga, Diyatatwa, and Dáyakramasangraha. It is the work of a very acute logician, who has interpreted his author and reasoned on his arguinents with great accuracy and precision ; and has well illustrated the text by expressing what was implied by the terms didi (&c.,) and anta (as far as,) and by expressing the distinction between the relatives of the whole and the half blood, and supplying the omissions and deficiencies. He has generally confirmed its positions, but sometimes modified or amended them. For instance, among the grandfather's and great grandfather's descendants (in the male line) he expressly gives preference to those of the whole blood. In the succession of sakulya Ji'Mustav Ashana laid down: “the grandson's grandson, and the rest are nearest. On failure of such, the offspring of the paternal grandfather's grandfather inherits;” but did not explicitly recognise the heritable right of the sakulyas in the ascend. ing line, i. e. paternal grandfather's grandfather and the father and grandfather of the latter. But the commentator has modified or amended it, saying : “On failure of these, the right of inheritance accrues to the kindred in the descending line, namely, to the grandson's grandson, and other descendants for three generations in succession. In default of these, the inheritance returns to the ascending line of the distant kindred ; namely, the grandfather's grandfather and the rest, and their offspring in the order of proximity.” Between the paternal great grandfather's son and the maternal uncle the commentator has interposed, as heir, the maternal grandfather, who is not designated as such by Ji?au'r Avatana. The author says: “a failure of descendants from the same patriarch and of persons bearing the same family name, as well as of Brähmanas, must be understood as occurring when there are mone inhabiting the same village ; else an escheat to the king would never happen.” The commentator, leaving out the condition of a Brähmana being an inhabitant of the same village, says : “the inheritance devolves suggessively on a person bearing the family name, and on one descending from the same patriarch, in either case being an inhabitant of the same village. On failure of all relatives as here specified, the king shall take the escheat, excepting however the property of a _ Brähmana. But the property of a Brähmana shall be taken by Brähmanas, who have read the three wedas and possess other requisite qualities.”
- Colebrooke's translation of Sur'KRIsiNa's recapitulation in the commentary on the Diyabhiya differs from the text of that recapitulation as above quoted, in omitting the succession of the paternal great grandfather, and paternal great grandmother, in inserting the succession of paternal grandfather and grandmother after their own daughter's son, and in interposing the mother's sister's son between the maternal uncle and his son, as well as in some other respects. Such difference and disagreement may be attributed to the text of manuscript copy or copies from which the translation was made, differing from that lastly printed, and here adopted. The reason why I have preferred and adopted the last edition of the Diyabhāga is given at page 109. The omission of the great grandfather and great grandmother, and insertion of the grandfather and grandmother in the above place are evident mistakes and corruptions, in as much as, in the original
N 3
