History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.1193

v4.c63.1193

¹¹²⁹ In *Nawal Singh v. Bhagwan Singh* 4 All. 427, where after the father separated from his three sons he married a second wife, had a son from her and died leaving certain property inherited by him from a third person, it was held, relying on Manu, the Mit., Bṛ. and the Vīramitrodaya, that the son born after partition was entitled to the whole of the property acquired by the father to the exclusion of the three sons that had separated from him. In *Chengama v. Munisami* 20 Mad. 75 (where a father partitioned his ancestral property half and half between his two sons, reserved no share for himself and subsequently another son was born to him) it was held that the subsequently born son was entitled to one-third by partition not only in the property as it stood at the date of partition, but also in the property acquired by the two sons by means of the produce of that property (relying on the words of Yāj. II. 122 'āyavyayaviśodhitāt'). The dates of the partition and of the birth of the son are not clear from the report. In *Ganpat v. Gopalrao* 23 Bom. 636 (where in 1875 a father separated his son born of his first wife by giving him one third of the estate and gave two thirds to his two minor sons from the second wife and lived with them and another son was born to him in 1880, who sued in 1894 claiming one-fourth of all property) it was held that the one third given to the son by the first wife could not be affected and the plaintiff was only entitled to claim a share in the property given to the other two sons, and further that the texts of Viṣṇu and Yājñavalkya are somewhat vague and are applicable only to the case of posthumous sons who have no provision made for them. Vide also *Shivaji-rao v. Vasantrao* 33 Bom. 267 for further limitations on this rule in favour of the after-born son.