The Law Code of Yājñavalkya 2.8.29

2.8.29

atrocyate | lokaprasiddham eva svatvam ity uktam | loke ca putrādīnāṃ janmanaiva svatvaṃ prasiddhataraṃ nāpahnavam arhati | vibhāgaśabdaś ca bahusvāmikadhanaviṣayo lokaprasiddho nānyadīyaviṣayo na prahīṇaviṣayaḥ, tathā utpattyaivārthasvāmitvaṃ labhetety ācāryāḥ (not in GDh; DhKo 1124) iti gautamavacanāc ca | maṇimuktāpravālānām (DhKo 1219) ityādivacanaṃ ca janmanā svatvapakṣa evopapadyate | na ca pitāmahopāttasthāvaraviṣayam iti yuktam, na pitā na pitāmahaḥ (DhKo 1219) iti vacanāt | pitāmahasya hi svārjitam api putre pautre ca saty adeyam iti vacanaṃ janmanā svatvaṃ gamayati | yathā paramate maṇimuktāpravālavastrābharaṇādīnāṃ paitāmahānām api pitur eva svatvaṃ vacanāt, evam asmanmate 'pi pitrārjitānām apy eteṣāṃ pitur dānādhikāro vacanād ity aviśeṣaḥ | yat tu bhartrā prītena ityādiviṣṇuvacanaṃ sthāvarasya prītidānajñāpanaṃ tatsvopārjitasyāpi putrādyabhyanujñayaiveti vyākkhyeyam, pūrvoktair maṇimuktādivacanaiḥ sthāvaravyatiriktasyaiva prītidānayogyatvaniścayāt | yad apy arthasādhyeṣu vaidikeṣu karmasv anadhikāra iti tatra tadvidhānabalād evādhikāro gamyate | tasmāt paitṛke paitāmahe ca dravye janmanaiva svatvam tathāpi pitur āvaśyakeṣu dharmakṛtyeṣu vācanikeṣu prasādadānakuṭumbaraṇāpadvimokṣādiṣu ca sthāvaravyatiriktadravyaviniyoge svātantryam iti sthitam | sthāvare tu svārjite pitrādiprāpte ca putrādipāratantryam eva,

To this it is answered: It has already been stated that ownership is established purely by worldly convention. And in the world, the ownership of sons and others by birth alone is well-established and cannot be denied. And the word 'partition' is established by worldly convention as referring to property having multiple owners; it does not refer to another's property, nor to abandoned property. Likewise, according to Gautama's statement: 'The teachers maintain that ownership of property is acquired by birth alone.' And the statement beginning 'Over pearls, gems, and corals...' makes sense only on the view that ownership arises by birth. Nor is it tenable that it applies [only] to immovable property acquired by the grandfather, because of the statement: 'neither the father nor the grandfather.' For the statement that even what the grandfather acquired for himself cannot be given away when a son and grandson are living indicates ownership by birth. Just as in the opponent's view, even among the grandfather's pearls, gems, corals, clothes, ornaments, and the like, ownership belongs to the father alone on the authority of the text, so also in our view, over these items even when acquired by the father, the father has the authority to make a gift on the authority of the text; thus there is no difference. As for the statement of Viṣṇu beginning 'Whatever is given by an affectionate husband...', which refers to a gift of affection of immovable property, that must be explained as [valid only] with the consent of the sons and others, even in the case of self-acquired [property], because it is settled by the aforementioned texts regarding pearls, gems, and the like that only property other than immovable is suitable for a gift of affection. As for [the objection] that he would lack authority over Vedic rites requiring property, there the authority is understood purely by the force of their injunction. Therefore, in paternal and ancestral property, ownership arises by birth alone; nevertheless, it is established that the father has independence in the disposal of property other than immovable property for mandatory religious acts, textual duties such as gifts of affection, the maintenance of the family, and relief from distress. Over immovable property, however, whether self-acquired or received from the father and ancestors, there is absolute dependence on the sons and others,