Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s2.10

c12.s2.10

*śāstra*, Bk. ii, 1.) Kauṭalya is an originator presumably of the Dāyabhāga school. He says when parents are alive the sons are not entitled to a partition. Self-acquired property is not divisible and what is divisible is the ancestral property. If a man has no son his brothers and other collaterals are the heirs, and in their absence the property goes to the daughters. The division of property can only be done when all the sons come of age. If it were done otherwise, the minors are not liable to the discharge of the family debts. If it be the opinion of any, that proper justice had not been done in the partition, there is the right of re-division. These points agree quite well with the rulings of Yājñavalkya, ii. 117-76. Outcastes and their sons, eunuchs, lunatics, lepers and the blind are not entitled to any share; but still they must be given sufficient for their food and clothing. (Cf. Yājñavalkya, ii. 140 and Manu, ix. 202.) In the opinion of the author of the *Arthaśāstra* the elder sons should show some consideration towards younger ones though the eldest is entitled to an additional share. Daughters have no claim to the property though women are entitled to possess their own private property which is their dowry and jewellery. A woman could not, however, spend it when her husband was living, under certain exceptions. If she should die leaving no issues her property was returned to her relatives. Treason, transgression of law, elopement and other misbehaviour would deprive a woman of her property. According to Kātyāyana partition is certainly allowed. It was to be effected not by any hard and fast rule but by the laws and usages prevalent in the country, caste or guild.