The Law Code of Yājñavalkya 2.8.75

2.8.75

(niyogam anatikramya yathāniyogaṃ, niyogādhīno yo dharmo devarāc ca sutotpattir ityādiḥ sa no bhavati) | āpastambo 'pi jīvanputrebhyo dāyaṃ vibhajet iti samatām uktvā, jyeṣṭho dāyāda ity eke iti kṛtsnadhanagrahaṇaṃ jyeṣṭḥasyaikīyamatenopanyasya, deśaviśeṣeṇa suvarṇaṃ kṛṣṇā gāvaḥ kṛṣṇabhaumaḥ jeṣṭḥasya rathaḥ pituḥ parībhāṇḍaṃ ca gṛhe 'laṃkāro bhāryāyā jñātidhanaṃ cety eke ity ekīyamatenaivoddhāravibhāgaṃ darśayitvā, tac chāstrair vipratiṣiddham iti nirākṛtavān (ĀpDh 2.14.1, 5, 6–10) | taṃ ca śāstravipratiṣedhaṃ svayam eva darśayati sma manuḥ putrebhyo dāyaṃ vibhajed ity aviśeṣeṇa śrūyate | iti | (ĀpDh 2.14.11) tasmād viṣamo vibhāgaḥ śāstradṛṣṭo 'pi lokavirodhāc chrutivirodhāc ca nānuṣṭeya iti samam eva vibhajerann iti niyamyate ||

(Without transgressing the command, as appointed; the practice depending on appointment, such as producing a son through a husband's brother, does not occur.) Āpastamba too, after stating equality—'Living, he should divide the inheritance among his sons'—and mentioning the taking of the entire property by the eldest according to the opinion of some—'The eldest is the heir, say some'—and after showing division with special shares according to the opinion of some alone—'According to local custom, gold, black cattle, and black earth belong to the eldest; the chariot of the father and household furnishings, the wife's ornament, and paternal kinsmen's wealth, say some'—rejected it, stating: 'That is prohibited by scriptures' (ĀpDh 2.14.1, 5, 6–10). And he himself demonstrated that scriptural prohibition: 'It is heard without distinction: Manu divided the inheritance among his sons' (ĀpDh 2.14.11). Therefore, although unequal division is taught in the scriptures, because it conflicts with popular consensus and conflicts with the revealed text, it should not be practiced; hence it is restricted by saying that they must divide equally alone.