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

102 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV. 4. 39-40 / M. p. 49 ll. 1-9
ceremonies performed by their elder brothers according to the prescribed
rites out of the paternal wealth itself
Yājñavalkya (2. 124) states a special rule as regards the saṁskāras¹
(marriages) of sisters :—
(The brothers) whose purificatory ceremonies have not been performed
should have their ceremonies performed by those brothers whose
ceremonies have been already performed and the sisters also (should have
their marriages performed) by allotting to them a fourth share out of the
shares of the brothers.
The sense is that sisters should have their marriages performed by
giving to each of them a fourth part of such share as would belong to a
son of the class to which the sister belongs.
1 What ceremonies are obligatory and included in the word saṁskāra is a matter
on which there was a sharp difference of opinion between Bombay and Madras. In Govind-
rasulu v. Devara Bhotlu 27 Mad. 206 it was held that the absolutely necessary ceremonies in
the case of males end with upanayana, that marriage is not an absolutely necessary cere-
mony in the case of males and that a sale of joint property for raising money for the marriage
of a male coparcener was not a legal necessity. But this was dissented from in Sundrabai
v. Shivnarayan 32 Bom. p. 81 where it was held after quoting (at p. 86) the verse of Bṛ. if
there be younger brothers &c. that the word saṁskāra ordinarily includes marriage.
Kameswara Sastri v. Veeracharlu 34 Mad. 422 followed 32 Bom. 81 and G. Gopalakrishnan
v. S. Venkatanarasa 37 Mad. 273 (F. B.) overruled 27 Mad. 206. In Jairam v Hari 31
Bom. 54 (where a suit was brought by a Hindu against his father and brother for partition) it
was held that the brothers are entitled to have set apart from the family property a sum suffi-
cient to defray the expenses of their prospective thread betrothal and marriage expenses cal-
culated according to the extent of the family property but that brothers' children are not so
entitled. Vide also Srinivasa v. Thiruvengada 38 Mad. 556, Gopalam v. Venkataraghavulu
40 Mad. 632 (where it was held that provision should be made for the marriage expenses of
unmarried members at a partition but only for those who are of the same degree of relation-
ship as those who have been married at the family expense) But in Narayan Annaji v.
Ramlinga 39 Mad. 587 it was held that an unmarried coparcener is not entitled to have an
anticipatory provision for the expenses of his future marriage at a partition and when the
same case went to the Privy Council (in 45 Mad 489 P. C. = 49 I A. 168) the same principle
was affirmed. 5 Lahore 375 follows 45 Mad. 489 and 53 Mad. 81 distinguishes it In 29
Bom. L. R. 1412 it was held that the earlier Bombay cases (such as 31 Bom 54) must be
regarded as overruled by 45 Mad. 489 (P. C.) and in 30 Bom. L. R. 45 the court held itself
bound to hold on account of the P. C. decision that at a partition it is not permissible to provide
for the marriage expenses of unmarried members. It is submitted with the greatest respect
that the attention of their Lordships of the Privy Council was not invited to the express
texts of Bṛhaspati and Yāj. (II 124) cited in the Mayūkha and that at some future day
their Lordships would reconsider the whole law if the matter comes before them again.
There is no doubt as regards the liability of the brothers to provide for the marriage expenses
of their unmarried sisters when they come to a partition. Chedalavada Subbayya v Chedala-
vada Ananda Ramayya 53 Mad 81 (= 59 M. L. J. 826 F. B.) where it was held that in a
partition between a Hindu father and his sons, the sons are liable for the future marriage ex-
penses of their unmarried sisters in proportion to their shares of the property divided. In
Bhagawati Shukut v Ram Jatan 45 All. 297 at p. 299 the quarter share for the sister is ex-
plained as meaning as much as will suffice for her marriage.