DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0131
116
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture up in the general maxim that wealth acquired with
VL the use of joint funds is divisible. Wealth otherwise
acquired is indivisible, and the particular kinds of se-
parate acquisitions, shell as the gains of valour, etc., are
brought in merely as illustrations of this principle. The
gains of science are declared exempt from these rules in
Section I, in those cases where the coparceners are equal or
superior in knowledge to the acquirer; but in Section II.
1—19, this restriction seems to have been dropped. This
doctrine, which is recommended by its simplicity, has been
considered as the correct view of the law, and enforced
How far > not only in Bengal, but in the other provinces as well. It
shanidoc- aPPears f° me, however, that in this case as elsewhere the
trine study of the Bengal writers has unduly influenced the
'fronHt interpretation put on the opinions held in the other Schools
of Law, though this is manifestly one of the points in
regard to which the Bengal and Mitakshara Schools are
* at issue. In much of what Jimutavahana says, no doubt,
he is perfectly backed by Vijnanegvara (I. 4). But Vijna-
negvara holds that in the two texts of Yajnavalkya (II. 118-
119) relative to impartible property, the condition that the
acquisition should have been made without use of the joint
property has to be read with the four kinds of separate
acquisitions specified by Yajnavalkya, viz., a friendly, or
a nuptial, gift, hereditary property recovered, and the
gains of science. To other acquisitions than these four,
the clause regarding the non-use of joint funds is not held
applicable by Vijnanecvara, and the consequence is, that,
according to him, ad other separate acquisitions are partible,
no matter whether involving an expenditure of joint
funds or not. As an instance of such other acquisitions,
he names property obtained by religious gift {Pratigraha},
which is generally held divisible.1 Jimutavahana (VI, 1, 53),
1 Colebrooke (Mit. I. 4. 7 note) mentions certain variations of reading
in this passage. The reading Pitridravyavirodhena, " with prejudice to the
patrimony,” occurs in the Sarasvativilasa as well (para. ISO). But it is
impossible to reconcile this reading with the contents of para. S, in the
Mit. Colebrooke has, therefore, been right in rejecting it and in follow-
ing the Subodhini. The printed editions differ : but it is curious to note
that the reading Pitridravyavirodhena is found in two very old MSS. of the
Mitakshara, in the Elphinstone College, Bombay, and in the Deccan Col-
lege, Puna. Vijnanegvara is quite right too in stating that the precept to
divide property obtained by religious gift corresponds to established
usages. Even the Guru or spiritual father has a right to the alms
collected by his pupil. —See Manu II. 51; Vishnu XXVIII. 10, etc.
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture up in the general maxim that wealth acquired with
VL the use of joint funds is divisible. Wealth otherwise
acquired is indivisible, and the particular kinds of se-
parate acquisitions, shell as the gains of valour, etc., are
brought in merely as illustrations of this principle. The
gains of science are declared exempt from these rules in
Section I, in those cases where the coparceners are equal or
superior in knowledge to the acquirer; but in Section II.
1—19, this restriction seems to have been dropped. This
doctrine, which is recommended by its simplicity, has been
considered as the correct view of the law, and enforced
How far > not only in Bengal, but in the other provinces as well. It
shanidoc- aPPears f° me, however, that in this case as elsewhere the
trine study of the Bengal writers has unduly influenced the
'fronHt interpretation put on the opinions held in the other Schools
of Law, though this is manifestly one of the points in
regard to which the Bengal and Mitakshara Schools are
* at issue. In much of what Jimutavahana says, no doubt,
he is perfectly backed by Vijnanegvara (I. 4). But Vijna-
negvara holds that in the two texts of Yajnavalkya (II. 118-
119) relative to impartible property, the condition that the
acquisition should have been made without use of the joint
property has to be read with the four kinds of separate
acquisitions specified by Yajnavalkya, viz., a friendly, or
a nuptial, gift, hereditary property recovered, and the
gains of science. To other acquisitions than these four,
the clause regarding the non-use of joint funds is not held
applicable by Vijnanecvara, and the consequence is, that,
according to him, ad other separate acquisitions are partible,
no matter whether involving an expenditure of joint
funds or not. As an instance of such other acquisitions,
he names property obtained by religious gift {Pratigraha},
which is generally held divisible.1 Jimutavahana (VI, 1, 53),
1 Colebrooke (Mit. I. 4. 7 note) mentions certain variations of reading
in this passage. The reading Pitridravyavirodhena, " with prejudice to the
patrimony,” occurs in the Sarasvativilasa as well (para. ISO). But it is
impossible to reconcile this reading with the contents of para. S, in the
Mit. Colebrooke has, therefore, been right in rejecting it and in follow-
ing the Subodhini. The printed editions differ : but it is curious to note
that the reading Pitridravyavirodhena is found in two very old MSS. of the
Mitakshara, in the Elphinstone College, Bombay, and in the Deccan Col-
lege, Puna. Vijnanegvara is quite right too in stating that the precept to
divide property obtained by religious gift corresponds to established
usages. Even the Guru or spiritual father has a right to the alms
collected by his pupil. —See Manu II. 51; Vishnu XXVIII. 10, etc.