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

144 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. IV 7 28-30
[ M p. 78 ll. 6-27
co-sharers. The word vibhāgaḥ (division) has to be understood after the words
punar-bhavet (there will again be). Manu¹ says:
When after a partition is made some joint property is discovered that
partition should not be regarded (as proper) but a fresh division should
be made.
In case of the denial of partition by any one (of the separating com-
parceners) Yājñavalkya (II 149) mentions decisive circumstances:
On denial of partition it should be understood that the (fact of) partition
is to be established by (testimony of) agnatic kinsmen cognatic relations,
witnesses, by documents and by (the evidence of) houses and fields being
separately held.
Yautakaiḥ means separately alloted and there is the relation of viśe-
ṣaṇa (attribute) and viśeṣya (thing possessing an attribute) between that
word and gṛhakṣetraiḥ (houses and fields). Nārada (p 198 v 36) says:
In case of doubt with regard to the status of division between co-sharers
the determination (of the dispute follows) from (the testimony of) kins-
men a document of division and from the separate transaction of business
(such² as agriculture &c.)
The same author (Nārada p 198 v 37) says:
The religious duty of unseparated persons brothers (and the like) is single
when there is partition their dharma (religious rites and duties) also comes
to be separate.
In this (verse) the word _avibhaktānām_³ (of unseparated persons)
alone yields the uddeśya (the subject) while the word bhrātṝṇām being
its attribute is not intended (to be taken literally but only indicatively).
Therefore even as regards the father the grandfather the son the grandson
paternal uncle brother and brother's son when they are unseparated * the
dharma (the performance of religious rites and duties) is only single (and
not separate for each member).
Though a single performance (tantra) of an act having reference to
several religious acts is possible, according to the reasoned conclusion

1. This is not found in the printed Manu.
2. This word pṛthak-kārya-pravartanāt may also mean from the separate per-
   formance of religious duties, such as Vaiśvadeva honouring guests &c.
3. Vide above (text p 46 tr p. 42n. 2) about the Mīmāṁsā rule that the viśeṣaṇa
   (attribute) of a subject in a rule is not to be taken literally but only indicatively (as in
   'he cleanses the cup'). If bhrātṝṇām were regarded as the subject about which it is
   laid down or predicated that there is to be a single dharma for them (and not separately
   for each) when they are undivided, the result would be that as regards other undivided
   coparceners (like uncle and nephews, father and sons) the dharma is not one but
   separate. But this is not so. Therefore the subject is avibhaktānām and the rule applies
   to all undivided members whatever and the word bhrātṝṇām is only illustrative. This
   verse of Nārada is quoted in Debi Prasad v. Thakur Dial 1 All. 103 (F. B.) at
   p. 109.
   P 133 (text)