life. This is evident from the explanation given by the author of the Dayubhagu himself, of the above text of Vishnoo, in Sec. 56, (Ch. II,) “The meaning of this passage is, ‘In the case of his own acquired property, whatever he may choose to reserve, whether half or two shares, or three, all that is permitted to him by the law; but not so in the case of property ancestral;” as well as from the exposition by the same author of this very text of Vishnoo, in Sec. 17, (Ch. II,) already fully illustrated as applicable solely to the occasion of partition, (vide para. 22, p. 27.)
35. It would have been equally clear as desirable, because conclusive, if the writer of the article had also quoted the following passage of the Dayubhagu touching the same subject, (Ch. II. Sec. 46.) “By the reasoning thus set forth, if the elder brother have two shares of the father’s estate, how should the highly venerable father being the natural parent of the brothers, and competent to sell, give, or abandon the property, and being the root of all connection with the grandfather’s estate, be not entitled, in like circumstances, to a double portion of his own father's wealth?”
36. In expounding the following text of Yagnuvulkyu, “The father is master of the gems, pearls, and corals, and of all (other moveable property), but neither the father, nor the grandfather, is so of whole immoveable estate;” the author of the Dayubhagu first observes, (Ch. II. Sec. 23,) “Since the grandfather is here mentioned, the text must relate to his effects.” He then proceeds, saying, “Since here also it is said ‘the whole,’ the prohibition forbids the gift or other alienation of the ‘whole,’” &c.; and thus concludes the section (24:)
