is very clear; when the father separates his sons from himself, he may, by his own choice, give them greater or less allotments, if the wealth were acquired by himself; but not so, if it were property inherited from the grandfather, because they have an equal right to it. The father has not in such case an unlimited discretion.” Ch. II. Sec. 17, (p. 27.) That is, a father dividing his property among his sons, to separate them from himself during life time, is not authorized to give them of his own caprice, greater or less allotments of his ancestral estate, as the phrase in the above text of Vishnoo, when a father separates his sons from himself,” &c. prohibits the free disposal by a father of his ancestral property only on the occasion of allotments among his sons to allow them separate establishments. The author now conclusively states, that “Hence (since the text becomes pertinent, by taking it in the sense above stated, or because there is ownership restricted by law in respect of shares, and not an unlimited discretion), both opinions, that the mention of like ownership provides for an equal division between father and son in the case of property ancestral, and that it establishes the son’s right to require partition, ought to be rejected.” Ch. II. Sec. 18, (p. 27).
23. The author, thirdly, quotes Yagnuvulkyu. “The father is master of the gems, pearls and corals, and of all (other moveable property), but neither the father, or the grandfather, is so of the whole immoveable estate;” and points out the sense conveyed by the term “the whole” found in the above passage, saying, “Since here also it is said the ‘whole,’ this prohibition forbids the gift or other alienation of the whole, because (immoveables and similar possessions are) means of supporting
