DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0147
132
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture enough, take this term to denote “ the father of an eminent
A11 son;” and the two last-named works explain that it is
equitable to award a double share to the father of an
eminent son, because such a son is capable of gaining his
subsistence by himself. There is also a passage in the
Viramitrodaya (70), in which equal partition between the
sons and parents is declared to be the preferable mode of
division under a text of Katyayana. The Smritichandrika
(II. 1, 29—36) gives the text of Cankhalikhita its natural
meaning,1 but qualifies it by a text of Harita, so as to
arrive at the conclusion that the right to retain a double
share obtains in the case of an aged father, but not other-
wise. It quotes likewise the text of Katyayana (ibid. 37).
The Madhaviya (9-10) places the retention of a double
share by the father on a par with the other modes of
unequal partition, which are declared obsolete in the present
age of the world.2
The son The rights of after-born children are a fruitful theme
born after for conf,ention with the Indian Jurists. The Smritis, as
partition. in . • n. . p * •
shown before, contain two conflicting sets oi texts m
regard to this subject. The one set directs the re-opening
of partition in their favour, the other set cuts down their
rights so far as to give them a claim to their father’s share
only. When the era of Commentators arrived, those texts,
which allot a share to the son born after partition, were
restricted in their application to the posthumous son of a
father, brother or other coparcener, and the further condi-
tion was added that the mother’s pregnancy must not have
been known at the time of division, as in the contrary case
the division had to be delayed till after her delivery. This
rule was deduced from tie text of Vasishtha, which at first
seems to have recorded a mere local usage. It would cer-
tainly have been an inconvenient proceeding to open up the
partition again whenever a new sharer was born, and the
rights of sharers neither born nor conceived at the time of
partition were sufficiently protected by giving them a claim
to the entire property of their father, where he was separate,
or to a share, w<here he had reunited with his other sons.
The Mitakshara, by splitting up the text of Yajnavalkya
(II. 122) into two independent sentences, has contrived to
1 See above, p. 119.
2 Varadaraja restricts the double share to the case of ; inherited
property ; ’ could this be an erroneous reading ?
MODERN LAW OF PARTITION.
Lecture enough, take this term to denote “ the father of an eminent
A11 son;” and the two last-named works explain that it is
equitable to award a double share to the father of an
eminent son, because such a son is capable of gaining his
subsistence by himself. There is also a passage in the
Viramitrodaya (70), in which equal partition between the
sons and parents is declared to be the preferable mode of
division under a text of Katyayana. The Smritichandrika
(II. 1, 29—36) gives the text of Cankhalikhita its natural
meaning,1 but qualifies it by a text of Harita, so as to
arrive at the conclusion that the right to retain a double
share obtains in the case of an aged father, but not other-
wise. It quotes likewise the text of Katyayana (ibid. 37).
The Madhaviya (9-10) places the retention of a double
share by the father on a par with the other modes of
unequal partition, which are declared obsolete in the present
age of the world.2
The son The rights of after-born children are a fruitful theme
born after for conf,ention with the Indian Jurists. The Smritis, as
partition. in . • n. . p * •
shown before, contain two conflicting sets oi texts m
regard to this subject. The one set directs the re-opening
of partition in their favour, the other set cuts down their
rights so far as to give them a claim to their father’s share
only. When the era of Commentators arrived, those texts,
which allot a share to the son born after partition, were
restricted in their application to the posthumous son of a
father, brother or other coparcener, and the further condi-
tion was added that the mother’s pregnancy must not have
been known at the time of division, as in the contrary case
the division had to be delayed till after her delivery. This
rule was deduced from tie text of Vasishtha, which at first
seems to have recorded a mere local usage. It would cer-
tainly have been an inconvenient proceeding to open up the
partition again whenever a new sharer was born, and the
rights of sharers neither born nor conceived at the time of
partition were sufficiently protected by giving them a claim
to the entire property of their father, where he was separate,
or to a share, w<here he had reunited with his other sons.
The Mitakshara, by splitting up the text of Yajnavalkya
(II. 122) into two independent sentences, has contrived to
1 See above, p. 119.
2 Varadaraja restricts the double share to the case of ; inherited
property ; ’ could this be an erroneous reading ?