DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0415
THE EIGHTH LECTU'RE.
o
writers who hold property to be spiritual, do no more
than regard the institution of property to be ultimately
traceable to the supreme spiritual command enjoining
the attainment of heavenly bliss.
To return to the question of the law of property
as determined by Jimutavahana, He refuses to recog-
nise the juridical position of the family as a natural
corporate body, the membership of which accrues
by birth and in which the right of survivorship, obtains.
He, in fact, evolves' the principlos of succession and
inheritance by excluding the principle of acquiring rights
by birth. To prepare the way to his theoty he first takes
up the subject of transfer of property’ and maintains
that a transfer takes place, so far as the transferor is
concerned, by a declaration of his intention to part
with his property in favour of some one having sen-
tiency ; and that it is not necessary that the person
in whose favour the property is parted must accept
it immediately, his acceptance being only an act of
availing of the right given to him. Jimutavahana founds
this definition of transfer on sacrificial acts by which a
votary gives up his rights to a thing in favour of the
gods, the priest utilising the effects of the gift by avail-
ing of the use of it, if practicable. He, the priest, avails of
it as benefiting the Votary ; that is, the giver in connec-
tion with the sacrifice. In this way, Jimutavahana, by
treating the right of succession and inheritance as
analogous to the right by gift, connects the right of
succession and inheritance with spiritual benefit to the
person whose property is to pass. This principle
forms the leading principle of the Dayabhaga,
while the principle of the family corporation as
The prin-
ciple of spi-
ritual benefit
ancl that of
family cor-
poration, as
advocated by
Jimuta-
vahana and
Vijnanes-
wara respec-
tively.
o
writers who hold property to be spiritual, do no more
than regard the institution of property to be ultimately
traceable to the supreme spiritual command enjoining
the attainment of heavenly bliss.
To return to the question of the law of property
as determined by Jimutavahana, He refuses to recog-
nise the juridical position of the family as a natural
corporate body, the membership of which accrues
by birth and in which the right of survivorship, obtains.
He, in fact, evolves' the principlos of succession and
inheritance by excluding the principle of acquiring rights
by birth. To prepare the way to his theoty he first takes
up the subject of transfer of property’ and maintains
that a transfer takes place, so far as the transferor is
concerned, by a declaration of his intention to part
with his property in favour of some one having sen-
tiency ; and that it is not necessary that the person
in whose favour the property is parted must accept
it immediately, his acceptance being only an act of
availing of the right given to him. Jimutavahana founds
this definition of transfer on sacrificial acts by which a
votary gives up his rights to a thing in favour of the
gods, the priest utilising the effects of the gift by avail-
ing of the use of it, if practicable. He, the priest, avails of
it as benefiting the Votary ; that is, the giver in connec-
tion with the sacrifice. In this way, Jimutavahana, by
treating the right of succession and inheritance as
analogous to the right by gift, connects the right of
succession and inheritance with spiritual benefit to the
person whose property is to pass. This principle
forms the leading principle of the Dayabhaga,
while the principle of the family corporation as
The prin-
ciple of spi-
ritual benefit
ancl that of
family cor-
poration, as
advocated by
Jimuta-
vahana and
Vijnanes-
wara respec-
tively.