7. Numerous precedents in the decisions of the civil courts in Bengal, and confirmations on appeal by the King in council, clearly shew that the exposition of the law by the author of the Dayubhagu, as to the last mentioned point, so far from being regarded as a dead letter, has been equally, as in other points, recognized and adopted by the judicial authorities both here and in England. The consequence has been, that in the transfer of immoveable property the natives of Bengal have hitherto firmly relied on those judicial decisions as confirming the ancient usages of the country, and that large sums of money have consequently been laid out in purchase of land without reference to any distinction between acquired and ancestral property.
is, by birth, (although) the father have independent power in the disposal of effects other than irnmoveables, for indispensable acts of duty, and for purposes prescribed by text of law, as gift through affection, support of the family, relief from distress, ands to forth: but he is subject to the control of his sons and thes rest, in regard to the immoveable estate, whether acquired by himself or inherited from his father or other predecessor; since it is ordained, ‘Though immoveables or bipeds have been acquired by a man himself, a gift or sale of them should not be made without convening all the sons. They are born, and they who are yet unbegotten, and they who are still in the womb, require the means of support: no gift or sale should therefore be made.” Ditto, Ch. I. Sec. v. Art. 10.” Consequently, the difference is this; although he have a right by birth in his father’s and in his grandfather’s property, still, since he is dependent on his father, in regard to the paternal estate, and since the father has a predominant interest, as it was acquired by himself, the son must acquiesce in the father’s disposal of his own acquired property; but, since both have indiscriminately a right in the grandfather’s estate, the son has a power of interdiction [if the father be dissipating the property.]” Dyaubhagu, Ch. II. Sec. xxviii. “But the texts of Vyas, exhibiting a prohibition, are intended to show a moral offence, since the family is distressed by sale, gift, or other transfer, which argues a disposition in the person to make an ill use of his power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or other transfer.” Ditto, Sec. xxvi, and Sec. xlvi.
