vYAVASTBIA4-DARPANA 387 Half must here signify equalable part, by the rule which expresses that “equal parts are intended when the proportion is not specified.” On the question whether that half bo one share as the moiety of two, or half of the whole, JI’MU'TAvA'HANA says: ‘half of the whole suits. For if half of two shares were implied, why not say, or he shall receive one share, since the term ‘two shares’ must have some connection, therefore, to satisfy the question, towo shares of what 2 two shares of property acquired by a son must be affirmed.” 206 When the property is acquired by any one son through his own labour on his brother's stock, the father shall in that case have two shares, and both his sons one share each. But if it were acquired on his brother's stock and on his own, by his own labour, the acquirer shall have two shares, the father two shares,” and he, who supplied funds shall have one: and in both cases the rest of the brethren shall be excluded from participation.” “The , brethren participatê in that wealth which one of them gains by valous or the like, using any common property,either a weapon or a vehicle.” In expounding this text of VYA’sA, RAGIIUNANDANA says: ‘brethren, are merely an instance from which uncles and the rest should be also understood. There is equal reson why sons, grandsons, and great grandsons in the male line shall share in the reversion of the property belonging.to the common ancestor; and so does the great grandson in the male line : for the son of a son also belongs to his ancestor, as the slave of a slave belongs to the master: this is also reasonable. If therefore property be acquired by the son of a son through supplies from his grandfather's estate, the grandfather shall have half, the uncles and the rest a sharo each, and the grandson, who acquired the property, two shares: but if no supplies were received from the grandfather's estate, the uncles and the rest shall not participate.” Must not the text which ordains two shares be considered as relating to the wealth acquired by a son, and there is consequently no authority for the receipt of two shares by a grandfather ? No ; for it would be unequal that the son of a son should partake of property acquired by the grandfather himself, but the paternal grandfather should not participate in property acquired by his grandson. The word ‘son’ is a mere instance of a general sense; else the same term could not be so accepted in the text of J Agnyavārya - “If the father make a partition, let him separate his sons (from himself) at his pleasure, and either (dismiss) the eldest with the best share or let all be equal shares.” . Coleb. Dig. Vol. III. pp. 56-58. Wyawastlıá
