55. Sangraha or Smritisangraha
Volume I: Part I pp. 537–540
Quoted by Mitākṣarā, Aparārka and Smṛticandrikā on several topics of dharma – quotations on vyavahāra are many and important for history of Hindu Law – views of Saṁgrahakāra and Dhāreśvara coincide in many respects and were criticized by Mitākṣarā – date of Saṁgraha between 8th and 10th centuries.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
55. Sangraha or Smritisangraha
55. Samgraha or Smṛtisamgraha
This work is frequently cited by the Mitākṣarā, Aparārka, the Smṛticandrikā and other works on all topics of dharma. The quotations on vyavahāra are copious and are very im- portant for the history of Hindu Law. A few of the important views of the Samgrahakāra are set out below. He gives the requisite characteristics of a plaint in five verseṣ1 Accord- ing to him documents are of two kinds, rājakīya and jānapada. The ordeals from dhata ( balance ) to poison ( i. e. four ) are prescribed in cases where the subject matter is of great value ( i. e. above 500 paṇas ), while koṣa and the ( other ) ordeals ( in all three ) are prescribed in disputes for lesser sumṣ2 This is slightly opposed to Nārada ( ṛṇādāna, verse 336 ), according to whom the five ordeals from tulā to koṣa were prescribed in substantial disputeṣ The Samgrahakāra has in view the seven ordeals spoken of by Nārada ( ṛṇādāna verses 252, 337, 343 ), while Bṛhaspati and Pitāmaha enumerate nine. He defines dāya as the wealth that is handed down through father and mother.3 He held that ownership arose from the dictates of śāstra and was not an affair of the world ( laukika ) and puts forward two reasons in support of his theory, viz. if ownership were laukika, then it would not be possible to make such assertions as ‘his wealth has been wrong-fully seized by another and the texts ( vide Gautama X.'49 ) laying down the means of acquisition of wealth for the several varṇas would be meaninglesṣ4 Dhāreśvara held the same view. These views were elaborately criticized by the Mit. According to the Samgrahakāra,5 partition creates ownership in the son as regards paternal wealth ( in which he has no rights by birth ). Dhāreśvara entertained the same opinion, which was vehemently controverted by the Mit. holding that partition takes place of that in which one has already ownership. According to the Samgraha,6 ownership does not consist in being able to dispose of a thing at one's sweet will, since it is the śāstra that prescribes the proper disposal or application of all thingṣ The Samgraha7 laid down that the special share given to the eldest son, the practice of niyoga and the offering of a cow are all forbidden in the present age. Dhāreśvara also held the same view about the eldest son's rights and the Mit. also approves of it and quotes anonymously the same verse ( on Yaj. II. 117 ). The Samgraha in two verses apparently following Manu 9. 182-183, lays down that, if of several full brothers one has a son, all thereby have issue out of the several wives of a person has a son, all the co-wives may be regarded as putravatī. The Smṛti-candrikā says that Devasvāmī explained this dictum of the Samgrahakāra (Smṛticandrikā, Vy. p. 289 ). The Samgraha says that the widow of a separated coparcener dying childless would inherit his whole estate if she submitted to Niyoga at the behests of her elderṣ8 This was also the opinion of Dhāreśvara and was refuted according to the Smṛticandrikā by Viśvarūpa. The Mit. also criticizes this view. He names Manu in connection with the succession of a person dying without leaving any one out of the twelve kinds of sonṣ9 He has in view according to the Samgrahakāra the order of succession to a sonless man is :--- widow, the daughter who is a putrikā, mother, paternal grandmother, father, full brothers, half-brothers, the line of the father ( pitṛsantati ), the grandfather's line, the great-grand-father's line, other sapiṇḍas, sakulyas, the preceptor, the pupil, a fellow-student, a learned Brāhmaṇa. The Mit. notes that relying on Manu (9. 217) Dhāreśvara placed the paternal grandmother after the mother and before the father (thus agreeing with the Samgraha ). The Samgraha says that homicide and other offences when committed with force are called sāhasa.10
It will be seen from the above that the views of the Saṁgra hakāra closely agreed with those of Dhāreśvara in many respects and were not approved of by the Mit. and other later writerṣ In vyavahāra the Saṁgraha certainly marks a far more advanced stage than Yājñavalkya and Nārada, whose works do not contain the controversial questions about ownership, partition etc. As Dhāreśvara agrees very closely with the Smṛtisaṁgraha it may be argued that they were not separated by a long interval of time. It has to be also noted that Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi do not refer to the Saṁgraha. It is not unlikely that the Saṁgraha was in vogue in the territory ruled over by Bhoja of Dhārā and was therefore followed by Bhoja Dhāreśvara. Taking all things into con sideration the Saṁgraha was probably compiled between the 8th and 10th centuries of the Christian era. The Smṛti candrikā no doubt says in one place that the Samgraḥakāra follows the views of Dhāreśvara.11 But this statement should not be emphasized and interpreted too literally. All that it means is that both held the same opinioṇ There is no intention to state that Dhāreśvara preceded the Saṁgraha kāra. Chronology was never the strong point of Indian commentators, particularly when the writers whose opinions were referred to flourished several centuries earlier. We know that Bhāruci and Dhāreśvara preceded the Mitākṣarā which names both; but the Sarasvativilāsa in several places ( e. g. pp. 347, 361, 383 ) says that Bhāruci cannot tolerate the view of Vijñāneśvara and also says that Dhāreśvara and Devas vāmī follow the view of Vijñānayogin ( p. 395 ).
The Smṛticandrikā quotes several verses from the Saṁgraha on topics of śrāddha in which Gautama, Kātyāyana,