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

$\left.\begin{matrix} S. IV. 6.3 -IV. 7 2
M. p. 66 l. 24-p 67 l 5 \end{matrix}\right]$ PARTITION 135
of burden, milch cattle, ornaments and slaves, being visible, are divided
Manu has prescribed the kośa ordeal as regards concealed (joint wealth)$^1$
Karmiṇaḥ means 'slaves and the like' Hence the very same
author (Nārada) has laid down in the section on ordeals the restriction that
kośa alone is (the ordeal to be employed) as regards this matter
At all times when confidence has to be secured in case of suspicion
(that joint estate might have been concealed) at the time of partition
among cosharers and when there are several persons on whom the burden
of proof lies (in various ways) kośa (ordeal) alone should be administered
Now (begins the treatment of) impartible property.
Manu (9 206) says

• Wealth, however, acquired through learning by a man, becomes his
  own (exclusive) wealth, and so are gifts from friends, gifts received on
  marriage or at the time of offering madhuparka.
  Vyāsa says
  Whatever is acquired through learning or valour and whatever is
  saudāyika (a gift from affectionate kinsmen), these belong (exclusively)
  to him (who acquires them) They should not be sought for (i e
  claimed) by his co-sharers at the time of partition (of joint estate)
  Saudāyika will be explained (later on) And this (wealth) should
  be understood (as not liable to partition) when it is acquired without
  detriment to the paternal wealth
  Thus also Yājñavalkya (II 118--119)$^2$ says

1. These verses and the next are ascribed to Kātyāyana in Aparārka, Sm. C. and other
   works
   2 The verses of Yāj and the sūtra of Śaṅkha are quoted in Visalatchi v. Annasami 5
   Mad. H. C R 150 at p 157 and the Mayūkha is referred to at p 159 and it was held that the
   rule does not extend to property held by a title derived from the joint family and that the rule
   was intended to apply strictly to hereditary property of which the members of the family had
   been violently or wrongfully dispossessed or adversely kept out of possession for a long time.
   Vide also Bajaba v Trimbak 34 Bom 106 at p 110 for the text of Śaṅkha The texts on
   vidyādhana (gains of science or learning) have been discussed in numerous cases of which the
   following may be referred to Cholakonda Alsani v Chalakonda Ratnachalam 2 Mad H C
   R 56, Bai Mancha v Narotamdas 6 Bom H C R p 1, Pauliem v Pauliem L R 4 I A
   109 (=1 Mad 252), Krishnaji v Moro 15 Bom 32, Vasantrao v Anandrao 6 Bom L.R 925,
   Metharam v Rewachand 45 I A 41=45 Cal 666 (which examines most of the previous cases),
   Gokalchand v Hukamchand 48 I A 162 (=2 Lahore 40) In Lakshman v Jamnabai I L
   R 6 Bom. 225 it was said at p 243 'when they (texts) speak of gains of science which has
   been imparted at the family expense they intend the special branch of science which is the
   immediate source of the gains and not the elementary education which is the necessary step-
   ping stone to the acquisition of all science' In 48 I A 162 at p 173 it was said 'From
   maintenance out of family funds during the period of education the basis of partibility chan-
   ged to the receipt of the education itself at the family expense and then education generally
   was narrowed down to specialised education which is now the basis No corresponding
   change is however to be traced upon the question what is science in the sense in which the
   ext of the Mitāksharā uses the term' All doubts and difficulties as to gains of learning be-
   ing partible or not have been removed by Act XXX of 1930 which makes all gains of learn-
   ng the self-acquisitions of the acquirer.

• P 124 (text).