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

100 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ B. IV i. 23-25
[ M p. 47 l. 28-p. 48 l. 11
(share) Bṛhaspati¹ (pp 372-373 vv 19-20) also says :-
Whatever a father who has separated from his sons himself acquires, all
that belongs to the son born after partition those born before ( partition )
are declared to have no right ( to it) As with wealth so with regard to
debts gifts pledges and sales they (i e father and separated son) are inde-
pendent of each other excepting impurity (on death etc.) and the offering
of libations of water ( to the dead )
But if² there be only debts (and no property left by the separated
father) he (i. e the son born after partition) should not at all pay (his
father s) debts unless he secures a share (of property) from those (his brothers)
who separated before ( his birth) since it will be stated (later on) one
who receives riktha (ancestral wealth) should be made to pay the debt
(Yāj II 51) If (the father) be re-united (after partition) with some one
(out of the sons separated from him) then (the son born after partition)
divides (his father s wealth) with him (the son re-united) since Manu
(9 216) says :-
The son³ born after partition is entitled only to the property of his
father or he should divide it with those who might have become re-united
with him (the father)
*Yājñavalkya (II 122) makes special provision for the case where the
mother a step-mother or a brother s wife was pregnant at the time of parti-
tion after the father s death but the fact was not evident (at the time of
partition) and a son was born afterwards
After⁴ the sons have separated if a son be born (to the deceased father)
from a wife of the same class he is entitled to a (fresh) partition (with
the already separated sons).
And the partition is to be so made by all the brothers and the rest
contributing a little out of their respective shares that the share (of the after
born son) will be equal to that of each of them Viṣṇu (Dh S 17 3) says
1 The first verse of Bṛhaspati is quoted in Nawal Singh v Bhagwan Singh 4 All.
427 at p. 429
2. Mandlik s translation (p. 47) the previously separated son is not at all bound
to pay debts without receiving a share of the heritage is entirely wrong.
3. This verse is quoted in 4 All. 427 at p. 429
4 The Mayūkha applies this verse to a case where the father having died and the
mother a or step-mother s pregnancy being not known the sons separate and then a son is
born. The Mit. applies it to a partition during father's life time when the mother s
pregnancy was not known and then the father died and a posthumous son was
born The Mayūkha follows the Smṛticandrikā and the Vivādaratnākara. If th son
were born from a wife of another class, he would take a proper share from wealth
left by the father In Ganpat v Gopal 23 Bom. 636 at p 643 it is said the somewhat
vague texts of Viṣṇu and Yājñavalkya which direct separated brothers to give a share to an
after-born son apply to sons who have no provision made for them and have further been
explained by commentators as applicable only to the case of posthumous sons
P 105 (text)