Among the later lawgivers, Manu does not lay emphasis
on gotra but stresses Sapinda relationship in marital relations.
Yajnavalkya agrees with Manu. The original text of Manu on which the
author of Mitakshara bases his argument does not mention the prohibition
of as gotra marriages but lays special stress on Sapinda relation. But
it is to be seen that under the guise of custom or usage, marriages
contracted within the same Sapinda relationship are considered
valid in some parts of India.
In regard to property and inheritance the status of
woman in India was far superior to that of her confreres in any other
country of that age. A woman was entitled to separate property on which
she had absolute power. It is called Stridhana. This was sanctioned by
the earliest of the law-givers, though the later commentators divided it
into different categories. Vijnanesvara bases his exposition on this
point on a verse of Yajnavalkya (II. 148) and explains it to include the
property which a woman got by inheritance, purchase, partition, seizure
He has thus widened its scope to cover the etymological meaning of the
word and reconciles with Manu by saying that the six-fold classification of Stridhana by
Manu was merely illustrative and not exhaustive. A daughter is not left out in the
Laws of Inheritance. Both Manu and Brihaspati say: "As is self, so is a
son, and a
daughter is equal to a son ; how then, when one's self is living in the form of one's
daughter, can anyone else take the wealth?"