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

92 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA $\begin{bmatrix} S. IV 4 12-15
N p. 42 l. 20-p. 43 l. 20 \end{bmatrix}$
may reserve two shares for himself In the Pārijāta¹ it is said ' the word
'eka (in Śaṅkha-Likhita) denotes the best as Amara says that the word
eka is employed in the sense of the foremost ' another and only and
therefore the meaning (of ekaputra in Śaṅkha Likhita) is if he has a son
possessed of good qualities.
Bṛhaspati (p. 370 v 3) declares that as regards wealth acquired by
the grandfather (the father) is entitled only to an equal share even with
an only son ²
In wealth acquired by the grandfather, whether moveable or immove-
able father and son are declared to be takers of an equal share.
Yājñavalkya (II. 121) says
In land &c. (translated above p 78 ³)
Kātyāyana says
When the fathers and the brothers take in equal shares all the wealth
whatever (that the family owns) that is said to be a righteous partition.
*As for the text of Yājñavalkya (II 116)³
A partition made by the father among (sons) separated by giving
them greater or smaller shares if according to dharmaśāstra, is valid
Madana, Vijñāneśvara and others say that it means that if (the parti-
tion) made by the father be according to dharma (i e dharmaśāstra) it
cannot be set aside As to the text of Nārada (p. 192 v 15)
To those that were separated by the father himself with equal lesser
or greater (shares of) wealth that (partition) alone is lawful since the
father is the lord of all
That text relates to another (i e a former) yuga
In the case of the allotment of equal shares to himself (i e to the
father) and his sons Yājñavalkya (II 115) declares a share for the wife also.
If he makes the shares (of himself and his sons) equal, his wives to
whom no strīdhana was given by their husband (i e by himself) or
their father in-law should be made partakers of an equal share
1 There are several works called Pārijāta. The Vivādaratnākara (p. 400) quotes
this very view from Pārijāta. Therefore the work must be earlier than 1300 A D It
appears from the Vīr (p. 500) that it is the Vyavahārapārijāta that is referred to by
Nīlakaṇṭha. For the various interpretations of this sūtra vide notes to V M pp. 143-144
2. This verse of Bṛhaspati is quoted in Jugmohandas v Sir Mangaldas 10 Bom
529 at p 547 and it was said that there was no distinction between moveable and
immoveable property as regards the son's right to demand partition
3. This verse literally means a partition if made by the father giving smaller or
greater shares (to his sons) is valid The Mit. interprets it by introducing certain words,
which the Mayūkha also introduces. The Dāyabhāga takes the literal meaning and allows
the father to make an unequal distribution of his self-acquired or ancestral property
Dhareśvara according to the Mit. allows by this uddhāra and refers only to the
deduction allowed by Manu to the eldest.
P 92 (text).