পাতা:ব্যবস্থা-দর্পণঃ প্রথম খণ্ড.djvu/৫০৩

vyAVASTHAT-DARPANA 38 I unimpeached, nor can any interval of time, under such circumstances, annul their privilege of taking possession of their repective allotments. The deed of partition must therefore be upheld as valid and binding on the parties. .يه و 2 ت - - The following is one of the authorities cited in support of the above opinion. VrahasrArr;--"The omission to interfere by the owner, even though popession has been held by the adverse party for three successive generations in his presence, will not avail against him, provided : there exist some good cause for his non-interference, nor will possession held for the same length of time by a person standing within the degree of relationship (to the owner) termed the Sapinda, or Sakulya, avail against the owner.' The answer delivered by Shobhā Shāstrī to the second question was to the following effect : The deed of partition under the circumstances specified in the interrogatory is invalid and not binding on the parties mentioned in it, as far as it goes to make an unequal distribution of the ancestral immovable property, but as far as it relates to the property acquired by Rām Kánta it must be upheld as valid and binding on the parties concerned; because a man is vested with full authority over his owu acquisitions, which authority is defined to consist in the power of aliening it at pleasure. It must, however, be observed that, where a father makes an unequal distribution of his own acquired property by reason of any one of the legal causes, such as the greater filial piety of one son, his having a numerous family, incapacity, &c. &c. he (the father) does not incur the guilt attaching to a transgression of the law ; but is, on the other hand, he make such uncoual distribution by reason of his mere arbitrary will and uninfluenced by any one of the causes above mentioned, then (as in the case of a gift against which a prohibition exists) he incurs the guilt occasioned by an infringement of the law; but the distribution must be upheld, as valid and binding on the parties whom it concerns. This contitutes the difference. But as the father has not full authority (as defined above) over the ancestral immovable property, any distribu tion he may make, other than that which the law directs, must be considered invalid, and not binding on the parties concernca. - Authorities *ー 1st. Dáyabhaiga:-" So WIsIINU says: “When a father separates his sons from himself, his will regulates the division of his own acquired wealth : but in the estate inherited from the grandfather the ownership of father and son is equal.” This is very clear. When the father separates his sons from himself, he may by his own choice give them greater or less allotments is the wealth were acquired by himself, but not so if it were property inherited from the grandfather, because they have an equal right to it. The father has not in such case an unlimited discretion.” 2nd Dáyabhága:—“But if he 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 ou. account of a numerous family, or through compassion by reason of his incapacity, or through favour by reason of his piety, the father so doing acts lawfully...JA GNYavalkya declares that : “A lawful distribution made by the father.among sons, separated with greater or less allotments, is pronoup.ced valid.” So VHIHAs- o FArr; ‘Shares which have been assigned by a father to his sons, whether equal, greater, or less, should be ' “maiutairied by them; else they ought to be chastised.” NA‘RADA 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 of all.” Since the circumstance of the father being the lord of all the weath 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 ಟ್ಟಿe instance of his own acquired wealth.” '8ad páyabhága–“ The father has ownership in pearls, and other movables, though inherited from thods ther and not recovered by him, just as in his own acquisitions, and has power to distribute them.*ēnequally, as Ja'arzavarzya intimates: “The father is master of the gems, Pearls, and of all (other movable property); but neither the father nor the grandsather is so of the whole-immovable estate.” -