DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.39769#0441
THE EIGHTH LECTURE.
415
his work restricting the disposing power of the father in
respect to ancestral property has been virtually done
away with, and that by violating the Dvayo Pranayanti
maxim which he, in common with Jimutavahana, revered.
By the two classes translated by Colebrooke in paras.
28 and 29, section i. chapter I., Vijnanesfiwara limits the
power of the father to a right to alienate properties,
either in case of minority of his children or for family
necessity or for pious duty. This is very short of the
large power which has now been adjudged to him
viz., to alienate for any cause provided it is not for
immoral purposes. This large power is given by
relying on the clauses 50 and 51 of Yajnavalkya regard-
ing the duty of sons to pay their father’s debts. But
these clauses relate to the payment of debts of a father
who is really or practically dead. These clauses have
nothing to do with debts contracted by a father /while
he is living. To>read these debt clauses, once as only
relating to the liability of heirs and again as affecting
the liability of co-parceners is, simply a violation of the
Dvayo Pranayanti maxim as explained by Vijnaneshwara.
415
his work restricting the disposing power of the father in
respect to ancestral property has been virtually done
away with, and that by violating the Dvayo Pranayanti
maxim which he, in common with Jimutavahana, revered.
By the two classes translated by Colebrooke in paras.
28 and 29, section i. chapter I., Vijnanesfiwara limits the
power of the father to a right to alienate properties,
either in case of minority of his children or for family
necessity or for pious duty. This is very short of the
large power which has now been adjudged to him
viz., to alienate for any cause provided it is not for
immoral purposes. This large power is given by
relying on the clauses 50 and 51 of Yajnavalkya regard-
ing the duty of sons to pay their father’s debts. But
these clauses relate to the payment of debts of a father
who is really or practically dead. These clauses have
nothing to do with debts contracted by a father /while
he is living. To>read these debt clauses, once as only
relating to the liability of heirs and again as affecting
the liability of co-parceners is, simply a violation of the
Dvayo Pranayanti maxim as explained by Vijnaneshwara.