History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s63.41

v1.c6.s63.41

criticizes it. The Vivāda-tāṇḍava of⁷⁵⁷ Kamalākara says that Jīmūtavāhana held that the view about the equal ownership of father and son in ancestral property was put forward for precluding the possibility of the uncle taking the whole estate of a man dying (in union) leaving a son or a predeceased son's son or for precluding the possibility of an unequal distribution of ancestral property by a father among his sons and that Jīmūtavāhana took up this position, being blinded by his hatred of the Mit. The Vīramitrodaya⁷⁵⁸ also says that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mitākṣarā definition of *vibhāga* and the view of the Mit. about the times for partition. The Vyavahāramātṛkā⁷⁵⁹ also appears to criticizes several times views which were held by the Mit. and the correspondence is very striking. On this point this much may be said that the points selected for attack by Jīmūtavāhana do occur almost in the same words in the Mit. but, since the Mit. is not expressly mentioned and since it is likely that other writers like Asahāya and Bhāruci whose works have not yet been discovered might have contained the very same words that are found in the Mit., it is somewhat hazardous to assert that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit. alone and no other work. All that one can advance is that it is quite within the bounds of possibility that Jīmūtavāhana criticizes the Mit.