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

$\left.\begin{matrix} S. IV. 9. 6-9
M. p. 86 l. 28-p. 87 l. 14 \end{matrix}\right]$ RE-UNION 171
*shares (in the deceased father's property) since (on that hypothesis) this
text would have no application to one (a deceased reunited person) dying
after leaving a son $^1$ In that case the result would be opposed to popular usage
which is the basis of the authoritativeness of the science of vyavahāra (law
and judicial administration). (An objection may be raised that) if (the
word aputrasya) be not supplied (in Yāj II. 138), this verse will be appli-
cable also to one who dies reunited leaving a son and then in a competition
between a son who is not reunited (with his deceased father) and a brother
and the rest who are reunited (with the deceased), the brother and the
rest alone (who are reunited) will get (the estate of the deceased) and
not the son and the like (who are not reunited) (The reply is that) it
is not so and (the objection) will be answered in explaining the latter half of
this verse (Yāj II 138).
(The author) states (in the words 'sodarasya &c) an exception to
what is laid down in this first quarter of the verse (viz. 'of one reunited,
the reunited coparcener') here the words 'saṁsṛṣṭinaḥ saṁsṛṣṭī' are
understood (in the second quarter) The meaning (of the second quarter) is
that in a competition between a full brother and a half brother, both being
reunited (with the deceased), the full brother who is reunited should take
the wealth of the deceased reunited member. The latter half of the verse
(Yāj II 138) is 'dadyāt &c'. The meaning (of this latter half) is if at
the time of dividing the estate of a deceased re-united member the
pregnancy of his wife was not ascertained and a son is subsequently born, the
paternal uncle or the like who was reunited (with the deceased) should
deliver the share (of the deceased) to such a son, but in the absence
of a son he should take the share himself $^2$ Here the mere fact of being
a son determines the right to take the share of (the deceased)
father and not the fact of being born after the partition (between the sur-
viving reunited coparceners), because the latter supposition serves no purpose,
is cumbrous and would lead to the (unacceptable) result that a son born to
a reunited coparcener in a distant country before partition would not be
entitled to share (his father's estate) if the fact (of his birth) was not
known (to the partitioning members). Therefore an uncle or the like
though reunited must give the share (of the deceased reunited member) to
his son previously born, though not reunited (with the deceased).

1. If 'aputrasya' were supplied in Yāj. II. 138, that verse would have no application
   to a reunited person who left male issue Then the result would be that if a man died re-
   united with a son and also left a son or grandson who was not reunited, both sons would
   take shares, as the verse 'of one reunited, a reunited coparcener takes the wealth' applies
   on the hypothesis supposed only to one dying issueless
2. The Mit and the Mayūkha widely differ as to the interpretation of Yāj II 138
   The Mit supplies the word 'aputrasya' in it, Nīlakaṇṭha does not. The Mit connects the
   first half of II 138 with the latter half, while Nīl. takes the two halves as independent.
   Vide notes to V M. pp. 268-270 for details.

• P. 148 (text).