WYAVASTHAT-DARPANA 365 The father is master of gems, pearls, and corals, and of all (other movable) property: but neither the father nor the grandfather is so of the whole real estate. JAGNyAvALKYA, (D6. bhfi. p. 29). But where the (grandfather's) estate consists not of land, corrody, and slaves, but only of gems and other movable property, there the father has not power to consume or dispose of all; since the reason is the same, and the text which declares the father to be master applies where the estate consists of both movable and immovable property. Sarkaishna's Commentary on the Dáyabhága, Sans. p. 42. 194 Land, corrody, and chattels, inherited from the grandfather by the father in right of affinity, are held to be properly ancestral, the father having no power to use them as his self-acquired property. “The ownership of father and son is the same in land, which was acquired by the father's fathor, or in corrody, or in chattels.” (k).* JA'anyavalkyA. (k) A “corrody” signifies what is fixed by a promise in this form. : “I will give that in every month of Kirtiki.” By “chattels,” from their association with land, slaves must be here meant.” That the property descended from the paternal great-grandfather is to be treated as that inherited from the paternal grandfather, appears to be indisputable. But the question is, whether property inherited frɔm the maternal grandfather and the rest is or is not to be treated just as that devolved from the paternal grandfather ? To this question some reply, “that ‘ his own acquired wealth,’ in the text of Vishnut, signifies that which was gained by his own act ; but, what is receivcd from the maternal grandfather, being gained without any exertion on the part of the father, is not accquired by his act; he shall therefore receive two shares or the like, as suggested by the general rule. It should not be objected, that the text only ascribing to the father and son equal domigion over property left by a paternal grandfather, they have not such claims in this case. Their cqual dominion is a necessary consequence of considering the term, ‘property left by the paternal grandfather, ’ as a mere instance of a general sense ; else it would not be a rule, that the father, being the son of one born blind shall take two shares or other (greater) portion of property inherited from the paternal great-grandfather. The term ‘property left by the paternal grandfather,” must be explaimed as ‘property inherited in right of affinity: whether it be received from the paternal great-grandfather, and so forth, the father and son have equal dominion over it. Nor should it be argued, that property regularly descending from ancestors, is alone intended by the term ‘estate left by the paternal grandfather;' and that any other property, whether left by a maternal grandfather, or received in a present, or tire like, is regulated by the law which allows he reserve of the greatest part and so forth. There is no argument to prove that "an estate devolving from the maternal grandfather and the rest is not considered as regularly descending • Coleb. Dú. bhá. pp. 25, 26. + See arte p. 84l & Coleb. l)ig. Vol. II. p, 538. Authority Wyavaąthá Authority
