History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1128.3

v4.c63.1128.3

similarly he who recovers ancestral property lost to the family (and not recovered by the father and others) would not have to share it at a partition with his coparceners nor his gains of learning'. The construction to be put on these words was a bone of contention even before Viśvarūpa. The Mit. understands that the words 'whatever is acquired without detriment to the paternal wealth' are to be understood as qualifying each of the following four kinds of property.¹⁰⁹¹ The result is that if a gift is acquired by a member from a grateful person who was placed under obligation by spending family wealth, if property was acquired by gift from a father-in-law who was paid from the family property some wealth for securing the bride for that member (as in an *āsura* marriage) or if the property lost to the family was recovered with the help of paternal estate or if a man learnt at the expense of the family and made gains from that learning, then these kinds of properties were liable to be partitioned among all members. The result of taking the first half of Yāj. II. 118 as a qualification of the subsequent four kinds of property (as done by the Mit.) is that if a man receives a gift from a stranger even without detriment to the paternal estate the gift was liable to be divided among all members. The reason of the Mit. is that, if the first half of Yāj. II.