of the righteous should ever be regarded as the foremost evidence of duty or morality.[287] Upon this subject Sukratu, the grandson of the high-souled Janaka, the ruler of the Videhas, has declared the following opinion.  There is the well-known declaration of the scriptures that women are incompetent to enjoy freedom at any period of their life.  If this were not the path trodden by the righteous, how could this scriptural declaration exist?  As regards the righteous, therefore, how can there be any question or doubt in respect of this matter?  How can people condemn that declaration by choosing to conduct themselves otherwise?  The unrighteous dereliction of eternal usage is regarded as the practice of the Asuras.  Such practice we never hear of in the conduct of the ancients[288] the relationship of husband and wife is very subtile (having reference to the acquisition of destiny, and, therefore, capable of being understood with the aid of only the inspired declarations in scriptures).  It is different from the natural relationship of male and female which consists only in the desire for sexual pleasure.  This also was said by the king alluded to of Janaka’s race.’[289]

“Yudhishthira said, ’Upon what authority is the wealth of men inherited (by others when they happen to have daughters)?  In respect of her sire the daughter should be regarded the same as the son.’

“Bhishma said, ’The son is even as one’s own self, and the daughter is like unto the son.  How, therefore, can another take the wealth when one lives in one’s own self in the form of one’s daughter?  Whatever wealth is termed the Yautuka property of the mother, forms the portion of the maiden daughter.  If the maternal grandfather happens to die without leaving sons, the daughter’s son should inherit it.  The daughter’s son offers pindas to his own father and the father of his mother.  Hence, in accordance with considerations of justice, there is no difference between the son and the daughter’s son.  When a person has got only a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to have a son, such a son (instead of taking all the wealth of his sire) shares the inheritance with the daughter.[290] When, again, a person has got a daughter and she has been invested by him with the status of a son, if he then happens to take a son by adoption or purchase then the daughter is held to be superior to such a son (for she takes three shares of her father’s wealth, the son’s share being limited to only the remaining two).  In the following case I do not see any reason why the status of a daughter’s son should attach to the sons of one’s daughter.  The case is that of the daughter who has been sold by her sire.  The sons born of a daughter that has been sold by her sire for actual price, belong exclusively to their father (even if he do not beget them himself but obtain them according to the rules laid down in the scriptures for the raising of issue