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

VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [S. IV 9. 1-2
M. p. 84 l. 22 p. 85 l 8
Now (begins) the discourse on reunited persons
On this Bṛhaspati (p 381 v 72) describes reunion ¹
That man who being (once) separated dwells again through affection
with his father brother or uncle is said to be reunited with him
According to the Mitākṣarā and the rest reunion (of a man) can take
place only with his father brother or paternal uncle and not with any one
else since (others) are not mentioned in the text but it is proper to say
that it (re-union) takes place so as to be co-extensive with those who make
the partition the words father and the rest (in the verse of Bṛhaspati) are
only illustrative of those who made the partition, just as in the case of the
(Vedic sentence) he plants the post half inside the altar and half outside ²
Otherwise there would be the fault of the splitting up of the sentence ³
Hence re-union may take place even with (one's) wife paternal grandfather
brother's grandson, paternal uncle's son and the like ⁴ On account of the
same case relation (being employed in the text of Bṛ) in the form he is
reunited who having been separated lives together again there can be no
reunion between the sons of separated brothers ⁵ Reunion means a wish or
intention (expressed) in the form our present or future wealth shall be
common (between us) until a fresh partition
On this subject Manu (IX 210) declares a special rule about a fresh
partition between reunited persons
If reunited ⁶ (members) dwelling together should again come to a division

1. Bṛhaspati's text is quoted in 12. Cal. 631 at p. 638 where it is held that according
   to the Dāyabhāga it is not illustrative but mandatory and that there can be no re-union
   except between the persons specified In Basant Kumar v Jogendra 33 Cal. 371 it was
   held that there cannot be according to the Mit. reunion between first cousins who were
   originally joint, but had separated. In Balabux v Rukhmabai 30 I A. 130 at p. 136
   (= 5 Bom. L. R. 469 and 30 Cal. 725) the text of Bṛhaspati is quoted and it is said that
   reunion can take place only between persons who were parties to the original partition.
2. Vide text above p. 115 and tr p. 123 for this sentence.
3. For explanation of vākyabheda vide p. 90 n. 1 above. The two rules (vidhis)
   which this single text of Bṛhaspati is supposed by the Mit. as laying down are (1) re-
   union takes place when separated coparceners again begin to live together and (2) that
   reunion can take place only between the three classes of persons specified.
   4 In Lakshman v Satyabhamabai 2 Bom. 494 at p. 503 it is said about this
   passage relating to the wife that it implies a previous partition in the sense probably of
   the allotment of a share in a division with sons and then the text of Āpastamba Jāyā-
   patyor-na vibhāgo vidyate is quoted.
4. The words vibhaktaḥ, sthitaḥ and saṁsṛṣṭaḥ are in the same case (i.e nomi-
   native) and so the circumstances connoted by them must all inhere in the same person
   In Samudrala Varaha v Samudrala Venkata 33 Mad. 165 it was held that succession
   in a reunited family was by survivorship and that that mode of succession was not confined
   to the members that reunited but the son of a reunited member born after reunion
   is also reunited and takes by survivorship.
   6 The printed Manu reads vibhaktāḥ for saṁsṛṣṭāḥ
   P 146 (text).