Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.57.37
Blended reading (Sanskrit + English inline)
-
anapatyatvāt
—
because of the absence of sons
From an-apatya (sonless) + -tva (-ness) + ablative. The dharmaśāstra trigger for the daughter's-sons rule of inheritance. Gauḍīyas note: Bhagavān cites the technical premise; He is not improvising.
-
dāyam
—
inheritance
From √dā (to give). The technical term for inheritable wealth. Bhāgavata frequently shows Kṛṣṇa adjudicating dāya — His acts include the boring legal middle, not only the dramatic high points.
-
ninīya āpaḥ piṇḍān
—
after presenting water and piṇḍas
Gerund of ni-√nī (to bring / lead) + āpaḥ (waters) + piṇḍa (rice-balls). The tarpaṇa and śrāddha rites. Gauḍīyas: bhakti does not abolish the pitṛ-yajña; it perfects the descendant's relationship to the ancestor by performing it as bhāgavata-dharma.
-
vimucya ṛṇam
—
after clearing the debt
Gerund of vi-√muc (to release) + ṛṇa (debt). The debt — both literal financial debt and the threefold ṛṇa (to ṛṣis, devas, pitṛs). Gauḍīyas: bhakti to Bhagavān clears these debts but does not skip them; Kṛṣṇa here insists on the actual clearing.
Śrīla Śrīdhara Svāmī quotes the following smṛti injunction regarding inheritance: patnī duhitaraś caiva pitaro bhrātaras tathā / tat-sutā gotra-jā bandhuḥ śiṣyāḥ sa-brahmacāriṇaḥ. “The inheritance goes first to the wife, then [if the wife has passed away] to the daughters, then to the parents, then to the brothers, then to the brothers’ sons, then to family members of the same gotra as the deceased, and then to his disciples, including brahmacārīs.” Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī adds that since Satrājit had no sons, since his wives were killed together with him, and since his daughter Satyabhāmā was not interested in the Syamantaka jewel, which constituted the inheritance, it rightfully belonged to her sons. In Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains: “Lord Kṛṣṇa indicated by this statement that Satyabhāmā was already pregnant and that her son would be the real claimant of the jewel and would certainly take the jewel from Akrūra.”
Since Satrajit died without a son, and his wives left their bodies along with him, and Satyabhama has no interest in the jewel, her sons are the rightful claimants of the jewel. Taking pinda and water, offering it to their grandfather and freeing themselves from debts, they should accept the jewel. Smrti scriptures say "The wife, daughter, parents, brothers, sons, friends of the same gotra and students or brahmacaris can be the claimants."
Kṛṣṇa now resolves the hostility between Akrūra and all others. Satrājit had no sons and no other daughter. Though scriptures say that in the absence of a son or wife, the daughter takes the inheritance rather than the daughter’s sons, here Kṛṣṇa says her sons should take the inheritance, not Satyabhāmā. It is understood that Satrājit’s wife died along with him (during the cremation).
Kṛṣṇa, while recovering the gem, also adjudicates the inheritance — daughter's sons take Satrājit's estate, but only after the piṇḍa and water-offerings and the clearing of debts. Gauḍīyas read this as Bhagavān doing the work of a dharma-sūtra: even in the middle of a political settlement, sacred duty is the first claim on inheritance.
My note
Source: vedabase.io