DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9551#0250
238
RIGHTS OF HINDOOS
owner of his own share, (either divided or undivided) as a
propritor of an entire estate ; and consequently a sale or
gift executed by the former, of his own share, should,
with reason, be considered equally valid, as a contract
by the latter for his sole estate. Hence prohibition of
such transfer being clearly opposed to common sense
and ordinary usage, should be understood as only
forbidding a dereliction of moral duty, committed by
those who infringe it, and not as invalidating the transfer.
27. In adapting this mode of exposition of the law,
the author of the Dayubhagu has pursued the course
frequently inculcated by Munoo and others; a few
instances of which I beg to bring briefly to the consider-
ation of the reader, for the full justification of this
author. Munoo, the first of all Hindoo legislators, pro-
hibits donation to an unworthy Brahmun in the following
terms—" Let no man, apprised of this law, present, even
water to a priest, who acts like a cat, nor to him who acts
like a bittern, nor to him who is unlearned in the Ved."
(Ch. IV. v. 192). Let us suppose that in disregard to this
prohibition a gift has been actually made to one of those
priests; a question then naturally arises, whether this
injunction of Munoo's invalidates the gift, or whether
such infringment of the law only renders the donor
guilty of a moral offence. The same legislator, in con-
tinuation, thus answers ; " Since property, though legally
srained, if it be given to either of those three, becomes
prejudicial in the next world both to the giver and
receiver." (v. 193). The same authority forbids marry-
ing girls of certain descriptions, saying, " Let him not
marry a girl with reddish hair, nor with any deformed
limb, nor one troubled with habitual sickness, nor one
RIGHTS OF HINDOOS
owner of his own share, (either divided or undivided) as a
propritor of an entire estate ; and consequently a sale or
gift executed by the former, of his own share, should,
with reason, be considered equally valid, as a contract
by the latter for his sole estate. Hence prohibition of
such transfer being clearly opposed to common sense
and ordinary usage, should be understood as only
forbidding a dereliction of moral duty, committed by
those who infringe it, and not as invalidating the transfer.
27. In adapting this mode of exposition of the law,
the author of the Dayubhagu has pursued the course
frequently inculcated by Munoo and others; a few
instances of which I beg to bring briefly to the consider-
ation of the reader, for the full justification of this
author. Munoo, the first of all Hindoo legislators, pro-
hibits donation to an unworthy Brahmun in the following
terms—" Let no man, apprised of this law, present, even
water to a priest, who acts like a cat, nor to him who acts
like a bittern, nor to him who is unlearned in the Ved."
(Ch. IV. v. 192). Let us suppose that in disregard to this
prohibition a gift has been actually made to one of those
priests; a question then naturally arises, whether this
injunction of Munoo's invalidates the gift, or whether
such infringment of the law only renders the donor
guilty of a moral offence. The same legislator, in con-
tinuation, thus answers ; " Since property, though legally
srained, if it be given to either of those three, becomes
prejudicial in the next world both to the giver and
receiver." (v. 193). The same authority forbids marry-
ing girls of certain descriptions, saying, " Let him not
marry a girl with reddish hair, nor with any deformed
limb, nor one troubled with habitual sickness, nor one