VYAVAŠTEIA-DARPANA 371 For the text of JAgNYAvALKYA, which declares— “The ownership of the father and son is the same in land which was acquired by the father's father, or in corrody, or in chattels,” is intended to restrain the exercise of the father's will.” Consequently, immovable property inherited from the grandfather, and given or (unequally) divided through the indulgence of the father, or through his favour, in consideration of filial piety, of a large family to maintain, or of inability to earn a livelihood, shall not be consumed nor enjoyed ($ so distributed); for this coincides with the text which declares the equal dominion of father and son. Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. p.41. 199 The father has ownership in gems, pearls, and other movables, though inherited from the grandfather, and not recovered by him, just as in his own acquisitions, and has power to distribute them unequally, f provided the estate does not consist only of these.” 100 But where the (grandfather's) estate consists not of land, corrody, and slaves, but only of gems and other movable property, there the father has not power to consume or dispose of all; since the reason is the same, and the text which declares the father to be master applies where the estate consists of both movable and immovable property.” But if the father give a deduction of a twentieth part and so forth, to a virtuous or qualified eldest son and the rest, it is not an unequal distribution ; for it is not of the nature of an unequal distribution ; and the allotment of greater or less shares only is forbidden.f. goo As the father should give to his son his proper share, so should he give to his grandson whose father is dead, and to his great-grandson whose father and grandfather are dead, shares which their father and grandfather were respectively entitled to have. “Should an unequal distribution of the property inherited from the grandfather be nevertheless made, a second partition cannot be requested, but the father is guilty of a moral offence; as is intimated by Jiotu tav A1ANA in these words: ‘ unequal distribution made by the father is only lawful, (morally considered), in respect of property acquired by himself.’ Consequently, sin&b the father has full power over wealth which he himself acquired : his unequal distribution of it is lawful; but in respect of property inherited from the grandfather, that (unequal distribution morally considered) is unlawful. This appears to be his meaning.” Thus JAGANNATHA has expressed a new opinion on the plea of such being the menning of Ji'autava HANA. This is not however right. For if such had been the meaning of that author, then, as in respect of sale and gift he has said: ‘since it is denied, that a gift or sale should be made, the precept is infringed by making one ; but the gift or transfer is not nuh ;” (32) so also in respect of partition of ancestral real property, he would have declared a similar opinion. But neither he nor any of the leading authorities of the Bengal school has laid down that if the precept of the law is infringed in the distribution of ancestral real property, the partitiou shall o Ante, pp. 868, 865. & W. D4 kra, Samg. p. 90. * + See Cwleb, Dá. bhš. pp. 29 & $8.
- - M 5 lo
Vyawasbh á Wyavastb&
