History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1128.4

v4.c63.1128.4

118 is not a qualifying clause of the four kinds of property, then the following four kinds need not be expressly mentioned at all. If whatever is acquired by a member himself without detriment to paternal or joint estate is by itself separate property then the following four will only be particular illustrations of the proposition contained in the first half of Yāj. II. 118. It would be opposed to the usage of *śiṣṭas* to say that gifts from friends or gifts at the time of marriage or gains of learning acquired at the expense of the family estate become the separate property of a person and, as to *vidyādhana* acquired from learning at the expense of the family, opposed to the express text of Nār. (dāyabhāga 10) "when one brother maintains the family of another brother who is engaged in studying the śāstras, he shall receive a share of the wealth gained by that study, though he (the supporting brother) be ignorant himself". Further, if the first half of Yāj. II. 118 were taken as a separate and independent clause by itself then it would follow that what is acquired by *pratigraha* (as a gift to a learned brāhmaṇa) without detriment to the paternal estate would be indivisible but the usage of the *śiṣṭas* is the opposite of this. That there was such a usage about *pratigraha* is admitted by the Dāyabhāga (VI. 1. 54 p. 121). It must be stated however that this view of the Mit. about the first half of Yāj. II.