व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

90 VYAVAHÂRAMAYŪKHA [$\begin{matrix} S. IV 4. 8-10
M p. 41 l. 6-p. 42 l. 2 \end{matrix}$]
fault of) the splitting up of a vākya¹ (i.e sentence) and there would follow the
fault of uncertainty in that (the father may give) to one son a lakh (of
rupees) to another a cowree and nothing to a third.
Manu (9 112 116-117) speaks of a special provision as regards the se-
paration of the eldest (brother)
The deduction (from the whole family property) made in favour of
the eldest is a twentieth part (of the heritage) besides what is best of all
the chattels (of the family), for the middle (brother) it is one-half of
that (i e it is one-fortieth) and for the youngest it is half of the latter
(i. e. one-eightieth of the whole) But if the deduction for these be not
made the following shall be the apportionment of shares. The eldest son
should take one share in excess (i e a double share) the one born next
(after the eldest) a share and a half and the younger sons a share each
This is the settled rule of law
Manu (9 126) declares that out of twin brothers he who is born first has
seniority
In the subrahmaṇyā² formula also the invocation (of Indra) is de-
clared (in the śāstras) to be made by him who is senior in birth; and
in naming (or calling) twins seniority is deemed to be due to the (prio-
rity of actual) birth Among³ twins it is established in him
whose face on birth is seen first by his parents and kinsmen
As to what is said in the medical works like the Piṇḍasiddhi that senio-
rity(among twins) belongs to him who is born last, that (opinion of medical
works) is set aside by this (i e passage of Manu) so far as things to be

1. Vākyabheda is a fault according to the Mīmāṁsā. The rule is that in a single vākya
   there is to be a single vidhi and so if in a single vākya there are two vidhis that is a fault.
   Vide notes to V M. p. 180 for greater details. If it were held that the first half (of Yāj. II

114. relates to father's self-acquisition and the latter to ancestral property there would be
     two vidhis (injunctions) in the same vākya which is not allowable therefore the first
     half contains the rule and the second half contains an explanation or amplification of it.
     Mandlik's translation (p. 41) also because such a construction will involve the difficulty
     of three predicates is neither accurate nor clear.

2. The Subrahmaṇyā is a loud invocation addressed to Indra in the Jyotiṣṭoma to be
   recited by the Adhvaryu or according to some by the Subrahmaṇya priest an assistant of
   the Udgātṛ According to the Āśvalāyana śrautasūtra (I 8. 1 ff) in this invocation the
   names of the three paternal ancestors of the yajamāna are to be recited and also of his
   descendants for three generations according to their seniority in birth. Vide notes to
   V M. pp. 140-141 for further details.
   3 This text is not found in Manu but is ascribed to Devala in the Vivādatāṇḍava