WYAVASTHA*-DARPANA. My?
- Authorities—The text of MANu and Vishnu, laid down in the payabhaga: “What a brother acquired by his labpur, without using the patrimony, he need not give up without his بha assent; for it was gained by his own exertion.” -
Sankha and Likhita —“There is no division of a house or garden made by one son for himself; nor of water-pots, ornaments, utensils for food, and the like, nor of concubines or clothes, nor of water in pools or wells, nor of pasture grounds and roads: so said the lord of created beings.” - . : - - - DAA :سی “Partition of heritage among undivided parceners, and a second partition among divided relatives living together after re-union, shall extend to the fourth in descent: this is a settled rule.” . . . . * * - Sudder Dewanny Adawlat. September 4th 1801. Khudiram Sarmá and Uchchhabànanda Sarmá v Tirlochan. Maen. H. L. (vol. II.) Ch, 5, Case 7 (pp. 151–158). Q. There were two brothers who during the life-time of their father, and while they were living together as an united family, purchased some landed property with their respective separate funds, and retained their respective acquisitions severally, not jointly. On the death of the father, his property was shared equally by his two sons. The property in dispute is that which one of the brothers, since deceased; purchased in the name of his son with his wife's money, while his father was alive, and while they were living in a state of union. In this case, is the surviving brother entitled to claim any share of the property so purchased by the deceased? R. Under the circumstances above stated, it does not appear that the property in question was acquired either with the funds or labour of the father or of the surviving brother; COIìS(?– quently the brother, though living in a state of union with the acquirer, has no concern with his acquisition. . - - Authorilies.-- The following texts are laid down in the Ιλίγαύλαγα and Mita Kahara”, “What a brother has acquireil by his labour without using the patrimony, he need not give up to the co-heirs; nor what has been gained by science.” , “Whatever clso is acquired by the co-parcener himself, without detriment to the father's estate, as a present from a friend, or a gift at nuptials,...does not appertain to the co-heir.” . Dacca Court of Appeal, January 18th. 1820. Macn. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 5, Case 10 (p. 156). Q. . A boy received some jewels and other articles as joutuka” at the time of his annaprasuna ; and his mother having sold those presents, purchased a landed estate with the produce of the sale in his name. In this case, is his other uterine brother ontitled to share it with him? o в. whatever property (whether consisting of ornaments or other effects) is given as youtute to á boy, that is to say, presented to him at the period of one of his initiatory ceremonies, such gift is his exchsive and absolute property; consequently his uterine brother has no title to share the property which was purchased by his mother with his funds. Zillah Midnapore, November 26th, 1817. Miicn. H. L. vol. II. Ch. 6, Case 18(pp. 169, 160). 蠍 始 竣 * 弦 تفمعه . ine به همین نه. وی معمقامبر، منماه ص۴rt ها the ప్లీ `ಿ:::::: షీఫ్స్ఫి the time of marriage. What is their received is called joutuka; but the term is generally used to signify donations given at the time of each of the Saishuvas or ceremonies. - One . brother, though of an united family, has no claim to the property of another, if acquired with separate funds and labour: Land purchased for a boy by means of his jouĉuka is not lia ble to partition.
