WYAVASTHA: DARPANA 355 Should, the father not give a deduction of a twentieth part and so forth to a virtuous eldest son and the rest, the partition is not therefore invalid; for the allotment of a twentieth part and the like is founded (only) on piety and other merits, and equal partition is also propounded by the law: and if he do allot a suitable portion, including a deduction of a twentieth part and so forth, to his eldest son and the rest, the pārtition is not different from the law of inheritance; for the law assents to a deduction of a twentieth part and the like. Coleb. Dig. II. p. 543. Q. A Brahmin, who was possessed of some consecrated images, rent-sree lands, ancestral and selfacquired lands, had three sons. Previously to his death, he verbally gave the lands and consecrated images to his eldest son, and the rent-free lands to his other two sons. In this case, is there any necesity for the execution of a document to perfect the verbal gift P In other words, should the father have died without executing a written gift, is each of his sons entitled to an equal share of his property P R. In this case, it requires no written instrument to perfect the gift, as far as regards the self-acquired property; and the sons are incompetent to disturb the distribution made by the father, even though there be no document forthcoming. They are entitled, however, to share equally the ancestral lands. Authorities:— NA'RADA's Text. See V. D. p. 349. JA'oxy AvALKYA:—“When the father makes apartition, let him separate his sons (from himself) at his pleasure, and either dismiss the eldest with the best share, or (if he choose) all may be equal sharers.” Mitsikshard. Zillah Junglemehale, May 24th, 1811. Macn. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. v. Case II. pp. 146, 147. Q. A father distributed his property among his sons, and subsequently to that distribution he wished to take it back from them. In this case, is the distribution revooable by the father ? R. If the father have divided his self-acquisitions among his sons, and subsequently become indigent, he is competent to take back such property, as is expressly declared by a text of Ha'arta cited in the Vivá"achintámami : “A father during his life distributing his property may retire to the forest, or enter into the order suitable to an aged man ; or he may remain at home, having distributed small allotments, and keeping a greater portion : should he become indigent, he may take it back from them.” Zillah Shdhdbdd, July 15th 1819. Macn. H. L. Vol. II. Ch. V. case III. p. 148. A SHARE MUST BE GIVEN TO THE SONLESS WIFE. 180 . If the father make an equal partition among his sons, his sonless wives must have equal shares with the sons.” Even the childless wives of the father are pronounced equal sharers.o Vyasa. Coleb. Dá. bbá. p. 64. The term “ of the father’ in the genitive form is put for the nominative. In the partition made by the father, his sonless wives only are entitled to shares, not those who have sons, while in the partition made by the sons, their mothers only are to have shares, and not those who are not mothers of sons. SRI'KRISHNA's comment on the Dáyabhága, Sans. p. 82.
- When the father makes a partition of his own acquired property, he should give a share equal to the share of a son to such of his wives, as are destitute of sons. W. Dá kra. Sang. p. 98.
I 5 Wyavasthá Authority
