v YA v ASTHA' DARPAN.A. 577 CHAPTER IV. ON THE EXTENT OF A PIROIPRI ETOR’s POW ER SECTION I.--IN Div 1 DED on sole phoy ERty. In partition the power of a father or proprietor is still the same as it was before,” no change having taken place in that branch of the law. But the doctrine regarding his power of making a gift or other disposition of real property ancestral or self-acquired has, of late, undergone a great, change. For, anciently the doctrine of the law was, that a father could not make a gift or other disposition of such property without the consent of his sons, as is clear from the following texts : — “The ownership of father and son is the surne in lund which was acquired by his (the father's ) father, or in a corrody, or in chattels.” JA GN YA walkwa. “'The father is master of the genus, pearls, and corals, and of all (other movable property :) but neither the father nor the grandfather is so of the whole immovable estate, "+ JA (ix v A vai. R Y A. “Though inamovables and bipeds have been acquired by a man himself, a gift or sale of then should not be made without convening all the sons. They, who are born, and they who are yet unbegotten, and they who are still in the womb, require the means of support : no gift or sale should, therefore, be made.” V YA’sA as cited in the Misa? whara and other compilations. 'I'he reason for prohibiting the disposition of real property was that the farmily may not suffer for want of maintenance, since immovables and similar possessions are means of supporting the family, and the maintenance of the family is an indisrensable obligation, and the diseipation of the means of subsistence is censured. Thus MANU :--‘‘The support of persons who should be maintained is the approved means of attaining heaven. But hell is the initri’s portion if they suffer. Therefore let (a master of a family) carefully maintain them.” “...He who bestows
- The extent of his power in this respect will be known on perusal of Joyanastha’s Nos. 167, 168, 172, 173, 174, 177, 178, 180, 187, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, and 207 ; and the Case of Bhawa’ni Charan Barnarjya versus the heirs of Iła’m Kaonta Barnarjya'. See Partition, pp. 341 . -- 389.
+ Since the grandfather is ( here ) mentioned, the text must relate to his effects. Iły again say - ing “all” after specisiying “gens, pearls, &c.” it is shown, that the father has authority to make a gift or any similar disposition of all effects other than land, &c. but not of immovables, a corrowly, and ëhattels (i. e. slaves ). Coleb. IDar. bha^. p. 20.
- The concurrence of all the sons ( and fatherless grandsons) in the disposition of real property is however dispensed with in the case where they happen to be all minors ( at the time), and incapable of giving their consent to the disposition, and a calamity affecting the family require it, or the support of the family render it necessary, or indispensable duties, such as the obsequies of the sat her or the like, make it unavoidable. For Vrihaspati ordains : “Even a single individual may conclude a donation, mortgage, or sale of immovable property, during a season of distress, for the sake of the
family, and especially for pious purposes. See Mitaokahara’, p. 257. Strange's Pf. L. vol. I. p. 19.
