History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1189.3

v4.c63.1189.3

Viśvarūpa regards the whole verse as laying down one proposition, the first half declaring that if a son (who had been 'already conceived) were born to the father after partition with the sons, he would be entitled to the share taken by the father, while the 2nd half declares that if the father took no share then the son so born would be entitled to reopen the partition and take a share of the property remaining after taking into account accretions and expenses. The Dīpakalikā seems to be of the same opinion as Viśvarūpa, but it adds that Manu IX. 216 provides for the case where the son is both conceived and born after partition. The Sm. C. (II. pp. 306-307) holds that when in the father's lifetime partition takes place the sons separating should give a share to the after-born son, but the father should retain his, while the whole of Yāj. II. 122 applies to the case where partition is made after the father's death and a posthumous son is born to the mother or to the widow of a brother dying before partition. In such a case the partition should be reopened and a share given out of the property as it stood at the first partition or out of the property as found to exist at the reopened partition after allowing for accretions and proper expenses (for payment of debts, for saṁskāras of brothers and sisters); vide V. P. p. 463 for explanation of 'dṛśyād' etc. The Vyavahāra-mayūkha (p. 105) follows the Sm. C. and V. R. (p. 539) in explaining the whole of Yāj II.