DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0231
OVER ANCESTRAL PROPERTY.
Numerous precedents in the decisions of the civil
courts in Bengal, and confirmations on appeal by the King-
in council, clearly shew that the exposition of the law by
the author of the Dayubhagu, as to the last mentioned
point, so far from being regarded as a dead letter, has been
equally, as in other points, recognized and adopted by the
judicial authorities both here and in England. The con-
sequence has been, that in the transfer of immoveable
property the natives of Bengal have hitherto firmly relied
on those judicial decisions as confirming the ancient usages
of the country, and that large sums of money have conse-
quently been laid out in purchase of land without reference
to any distinction between acquired and ancestral property.
is, by birth, (although) the father have independent power in the
disposal of effects other than immoveables, for indispensable acts
of duty, and for purposes prescribed by text of law, as gift
through affection, support of the family, relief from distress, and?
to forth : but he is subject to the control of his sons and thes rest,
in regard to the immoveable estate, whether acquired by him-
self or inherited from his father or other predecessor ; since it is
ordained, ' Though immoveables or bipeds have been acquired
by a man himself, a gift or sale of them should not be made
without convening all the sons. They are born, and they who
are yet unbegotten, and they wrho are still in the womb, require
the means of support : no gift or sale should therefore be
made."
Ditto, Gh. I. Sec. v. Art. 10." Consequently, the difference is
this ; although he have a right by birth in his father's and in
his grandfather's property, still, since he is dependent on his
father, in regard to the paternal estate, and since the father has
a predominant interest, as it was acquired by himself, the son
must acquiesce in the father's disposal of his own acquired
property ; but, since both have indiscriminately a right in the,
grandfather's estate, the son has a power of interdiction [if the
father be dissipating the property.]"
Dyaubhagu, Ch. II. Sec. xxviii. "But the texts of Vyas,
exhibiting a prohibition, are intended to show a moral offence,
since the family is distressed by sale, gift, or other transfer,
which argues a disposition in the person to make an ill use of
his power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or
other transfer." Ditto, Sec. xxvi, and Sec. xlvi.
Numerous precedents in the decisions of the civil
courts in Bengal, and confirmations on appeal by the King-
in council, clearly shew that the exposition of the law by
the author of the Dayubhagu, as to the last mentioned
point, so far from being regarded as a dead letter, has been
equally, as in other points, recognized and adopted by the
judicial authorities both here and in England. The con-
sequence has been, that in the transfer of immoveable
property the natives of Bengal have hitherto firmly relied
on those judicial decisions as confirming the ancient usages
of the country, and that large sums of money have conse-
quently been laid out in purchase of land without reference
to any distinction between acquired and ancestral property.
is, by birth, (although) the father have independent power in the
disposal of effects other than immoveables, for indispensable acts
of duty, and for purposes prescribed by text of law, as gift
through affection, support of the family, relief from distress, and?
to forth : but he is subject to the control of his sons and thes rest,
in regard to the immoveable estate, whether acquired by him-
self or inherited from his father or other predecessor ; since it is
ordained, ' Though immoveables or bipeds have been acquired
by a man himself, a gift or sale of them should not be made
without convening all the sons. They are born, and they who
are yet unbegotten, and they wrho are still in the womb, require
the means of support : no gift or sale should therefore be
made."
Ditto, Gh. I. Sec. v. Art. 10." Consequently, the difference is
this ; although he have a right by birth in his father's and in
his grandfather's property, still, since he is dependent on his
father, in regard to the paternal estate, and since the father has
a predominant interest, as it was acquired by himself, the son
must acquiesce in the father's disposal of his own acquired
property ; but, since both have indiscriminately a right in the,
grandfather's estate, the son has a power of interdiction [if the
father be dissipating the property.]"
Dyaubhagu, Ch. II. Sec. xxviii. "But the texts of Vyas,
exhibiting a prohibition, are intended to show a moral offence,
since the family is distressed by sale, gift, or other transfer,
which argues a disposition in the person to make an ill use of
his power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or
other transfer." Ditto, Sec. xxvi, and Sec. xlvi.