WYAVASTHA-DARPANA $4.9 (a) “The order suitable to an aged man:’—that is, the state of a travelling devotee. See—Dá. bhá. p. 44. (d) “Should he become indigent:’—that is, should he have spent the whole of his wealth. Dá. Kra. Sang. p. 94. r Even in the self-acquired property, the unequal distribution at the father's will should be made on the ground of piety or having a large family to maintain, or incapacity, and the like. (Dá. T. p. 8). Consequently: 174. If the father make an unequal distribution of his own acquired wealth, being desirous of giving more to one, as a token of esteem, on account of his good qualities, or for his support on account of a numerous family, or through compassion by reason of his incapacity, or through favor by reason of his piety; the father, so doing, acts lawfully.” Jag NYAvalkya declares:—“A lawful distribution, made by the father, among sons separated with greater or less allotments, is pronounced (valid).” So VRIHAspati:—“Shares, which have been assigned by a father to his sons, whether equal, greater, or less, should be maintained by them. Else they ought to be chastised.” - NATRADA—likewise:–"For such as have been separated by their father with equal, greater, or less allotments of wealth, that is a lawful distribution: for the father is lord (i) of all.” (i) “ Lord ”–that is, possessed of the power to alienate at pleasure. Dá. Kra. Sang p. 94. Since the circumstance of the father being lord of all the wealth, is stated as a reason, and that cannot be in regard to the grandfather's estate, an unequal distribution made by the father, is lawful only in the instance of his own acquired wealth.” However :— 175. Should the father make unequal distribution among his sons, without any of the aforesaid reasons, such division is not moral. SR11: Rish NA’s comment on the Dấyabhága, Sans. p. 65. Thus KATYAYA'NA:-Butlet not a father distinguish one son at a partition made in his lifetime, nor on any account exclude one from participation without cause.f That is to say: let him not distinguish one by the allotment of a greater portion, nor exclude one from participation by depriving him of his share, without sufficient cause. (This does not relate to the specific deductions :) for the distinguishing of sons by allotting to them the prescribed deductions extends to many, and is not confined to one. One son should not be distinguished with out cause. But for a sufficient reason, it may be done. Since the meaning is “even one son.” The distinguishing of one has no reference to specific deductoin; but intends a distribution made according to the father's mere pleasure, as before explained.t.
- Coleb. Dá bhá. pp. 40, 50. Dá. T. sans. p. 8. w. Dá. Kra, sang. p. 94, coleb. Dig. Vol. II. pp. 547, 548. + Coleb. Dá bhá. pp. 52, 53. Coleb. Dig. Vol. II, p. 540.
Vyavasthá Authorities, Vyvasthá Authority
