History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.5

v4.c63.t1.5

¹¹⁸² This rule, according to Yāj. II. 124, was restricted to brothers only and was not to be extended. If, for example, there is a joint family consisting of several cousins with their sons and the marriages of some of the sons of the cousins are performed at the expense of the joint family, then when a suit is filed for partition no provision can be made for the marriages of other sons of the cousins. Vide *Ramlinga v. Narayan* L. R. 49 I. A. 168. In *Jairam v. Nathu* 31 Bom. 54, it was held that in a partition suit between father and sons, a minor son is entitled to have provision made for his thread, betrothal and marriage ceremonies out of the joint family property before the property is partitioned. In *Sundrabai v. Shiv Narayan* 32 Bom. 81 it was held that marriage is one of the saṁskāras which both Yāj. and Nārada refer to. In 38 Mad. 556 the same principle was established. But in *Venkatarayudu v. Sivaramkrishnayya* 58 Mad. 126 and in *Pranjivan v. Motiram* 29 Bom. L. R. 1412 it has been held that the decisions in 38 Mad. 556 and in 31 Bom. 54 must be regarded as overruled by the P. C. decision in L. R. 49 I. A. 168, and in 58 Mad. 126 it was held that an unmarried brother is not entitled to have provision made for his marriage in a decree for partition. It is submitted with great respect that these Madras and Bombay decisions are wrong so far as unmarried brothers are concerned, that they go against the express texts of several writers like Kauṭilya, Nārada, Bṛ., Viśvarūpa, Madanapārijāta (p. 648) and that the Privy Council in 49 I. A. 168 was dealing with the provision for marriages of the children of coparceners and not of brothers.