History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1082.3

v4.c63.1082.3

declare that customs of countries, castes, villages and groups varying rules of partition and inheritance should be enforced by the king¹⁰⁶¹. Dr. Jolly (ibid. p. 98) further relies on the fact that the Āpastambadharmasūtra mentions no other kind of partition than that made by the father. But this is far from conclusive. Āpastamba was a great purist and idealist. He ignores several matters which are wellknown to have existed long before his time. For example, he takes no notice of the several kinds of secondary sons and he does not allow a brāhmaṇa to take up a weapon even for examining it except when he is murderously attacked (I. 10. 29. 7–8), while Manu (VIII. 345–349), Gautama VII. 6 and 25 and others allow a brāhmaṇa much greater latitude. Therefore Āpastamba's silence cannot lead to the positive conclusion of the absence of any other method of partition. As a matter of fact, Gautama (15. 19) who is generally regarded as prior to Āpastamba states that brāhmaṇas that had separated from their fathers against the latter's will were not fit to be invited for dinner at a śrāddha.¹⁰⁶² That shows that partition of sons from the father against the father's will was wellknown long before Gautama. Dr. Jolly also (ibid p. 90) relies on an anonymous smṛti text (quoted by the Mit. in its introduction to Yāj. II. 114) which absolutely prohibits the sale of land. But this is irrelevant.