VYAVASTHA-IDARPANA. 51 | among divided brethren, a presumption of partition is deduced from it by the intelligent. It is not to be concluded from the use of the plural number in the phrase “ by whom such matters are transacted,” that the concurrence of all those circumstances is required. For these texts are founded on reason; and the reason is equally applicable in every several instance. Coleb. Dr. bha2, pp. 288, 289. 203 By saying, “if there be neither writing nor witnesses,” it is intimated that presumptive proof is to be admitted only in default of written and oral evidence. Coleb. Da", bha", p. 239. や JAGANNA‘rila considers the distinct preparation of food after an agreement purporting separation is the sufficient proof of separation. Some of his observations are as follow:—“When it is observed that undivided co-heirs having large families, and perceiving inconvenience in preparing their food together, dress their victuals apแrt, that separate cookery is merely" intended for their own convenience: but preparation of grain for oblations to deities, for the entertainment of guests, (and) for the support of servants, is not in that ease separate. In fact they only are divided co-heirs who dress victuals separately, (and without consulting any other,) for all purposes common (to undivided co-heirs, ) for their families, connexions, guests, and the like: they only ought to perform separate acts of religion. IIence, although the remainder of an estate may be undivided, it is not considered as proof that partition has not taken place; for it frequently happens that disunited co-heirs have joint property.” “What then is the meaning of the term ‘partition ?” This question might be proposed, and is thus answered ; for it does mean division of the patrimony, since it would follow, that no partition could take place among those who are destitute of inherited wealth. Does it irot mean the division of any property whatsoever?. Accordingly JAGNYAVALRYA has said, “One who is able to earn a livelihood, and claims not a share of the joint property, may be disunited stom the family, on giving him some trifle? as a consideration to prevent future strife;’ and there can be no necessity of separate acts of religion without partition. (It bears) not (that meaning ;) for it might be supposed that no separation could take place between those who have no property whatsoever. Consquently, the meaning of partition is separation in respect of food prepared for the entertainment of guests and relatives, and for other purposes which are common (among united co-heirs.) How then can separation take place between those who are Vyavasthå
