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

$\left.{l}S IV. 4 35-39
M. p. 48 l. 11-p 49 l. 1\right]$ PARTITION AFTER FATHER'S DEATH 101
'those who separated from their father should give a share to the son born
after partition'. And this rule of Viṣṇu must be understood to be appli-
cable to the shares after taking into consideration the outgoings (the expen-
diture) and incomings (the accretions or profits$^1$) In case of existence of
these (expenditure and accretions) the same author (Yāj II. 122) says —
The allotment of a share to him (to the after-born son) should be
made out of (the estate) existing as correctly found after allowing for in-
come (accretions) and expenditure
Dṛśyāt (from the visible wealth) means 'out of the property that exists'
Vasiṣṭha (Dh S 17. 40--41) speaks of a special matter at the time of
partition among brothers 'Now (begins) the partition of heritage among the
brothers (They should wait) until those women (patently pregnant wives
of their brothers) who have no issue are delivered of sons'. The words
'waiting should be observed' are to be understood (after the sūtra of
Vasiṣṭha)
Bṛhaspati (p 373 v 21) lays down a special rule about partition after
the father's death
If there be younger brothers whose purificatory ceremonies have not
(all) been performed, then purificatory ceremonies must be performed by
the elder brother himself out of the common paternal wealth
The form yavīyasaḥ$^2$ (younger) wherein num (i.e m after the
penultimate vowel) and the long ā are absent is irregular after the manner
of Vedic usage The mention of the word bhrātṛ in (Bṛhaspati's text) is
illustrative and includes sisters And the same author$^3$ says
*And those daughters (of the deceased father) whose (marriage) cere-
monies have not been (already) performed should have their (marriage)
1 That is, proper expenditure made from their shares by each of the brothers is to
be deducted The translation of Mandlik (p 48) 'this has reference to shares neither
increased nor diminished by profit or loss' is wrong, particularly as he reads 'rekaschasahiteṣu'
and not —'rahiteṣu' Viṣṇu made no reference to the deduction of expenditure
and the addition of profits Therefore the Mayūkha had to say 'this rule must be under-
stood'&c while Yāj is explicit about them and so the Mayūkha says 'tatsatve tu &c'
In Chengama v Munisami 20 Mad 75 at p 77 Yāj II 122 is quoted and it was
held that, where the father divided joint family property among his sons and left no share
for himself and a son was subsequently born to him, that son could sue for partition of
his share in the property divided together with its accretions
2 The regular form is yavīyāṁsaḥ according to Pāṇini VI 4 19 and VII. 1 70.
Generally sixteen saṁskāras are enumerated According to Yāj I 13 they were
intended for purification For males upanayana and marriage and for females marriage
are the most important
3 But Aparārka, Vīr and others attribute this verse to Vyāsa.
*P. 106. (text)