This single folio contains a short treatise on inheritance. In its form and content, it mirrors chapter 17 of the , to which it may be a commentary. It deals with the same three topics in order: inheritance in case there is no male heir (aputradhana), inheritance in case of reunited coparceners (saṃsṛṣṭidhana), and women's property (strīdhana). However, this manuscript goes into much more detail. In the , the property of a man with no male heir goes to his wife, then daughter, then father, then mother, then brother, then a brother's son. In this manuscript, more subcategories are enumerated — for example, the term brother's son has been expanded to a uterine brother's son, then a half-brother's son, then a brother's grandson (folio 1r, lines 2-3).

One important divergence in this manuscript is that it allows for the sisters of the deceased to inherit property, in the absence of a brother's grandson (bhrātuṣputrasya putraḥ tadabhāve bhaginī, folio 1r, line 3), which was not traditionally sanctioned.

Notably, Nandapaṇḍita's commentary on the — as well as the commentary on the (ed. Setlur 1914, 775) — do argue for the right of a sister to inherit, by interpreting bhrātaraḥ as an ekaśeṣa compound to mean brothers and sisters. In fact, the also interprets bhrātṛputrāḥ as an ekaśeṣa compound, to also include the sons of sisters (ed. Krishnamacharya 1964, 254). However, the right of a sister to inherit was a disputed point in the Anglo-Indian courts of law, and explicitly rejected in the (ed. Kane 1926, 142).

Another text that seems to argue for the right of a sister to inherit is the of Caṇḍeśvara. Commenting on a verse from the now lost , Caṇḍeśvara interprets tulyā duhitaro, equal daughters, to mean tulyāḥ sodaryyāḥ (ed. Smṛtitīrtha 1931, 599), which Setlur translates as uterine sisters (1911, 233). This may not have been Devala's intention, though; rather, he may have been referring to a daughter being equal to a son — putreṇa duhitā samā ( 9.130, ed. Olivelle 2005, 770) — when a sonless man makes his daughter a "female son" (putrikā). Wadekar's reconstruction of the reads kulyā duhitaro (1996, 215) here.

In any case, what sets this manuscript apart from the two aforementioned texts as well as from traditional law is how it states, as a simple matter of fact, that sisters may inherit. It does not attempt to interpret a traditional text nor give any arguments for the rights of sisters; it simply includes them in the line of succession.