History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t1.6

v4.c63.t1.6

It has already been seen that a father could during his life time separate his sons from himself and also among themselves1182a and that he could assign shares of property to his sons. This power of the father is indicated even in the Tai. S. III. 1. 9. 4 (quoted above in note 1055) which refers to the story of Manu having distributed his wealth among his sons. It is argued by Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 14. 11 that, as this Vedic text (Tai. S.) does not expressly state that any difference was made by Manu as to the shares of his sons, the division must have been equal, that therefore the preference of the eldest son is forbidden by the śāstras and that when the Tai. S. II. 5. 2. 7 states that "they distinguish the eldest by (a larger share of) the wealth" that is not a rule, but a mere *anuvāda* (a statement of fact) and the Vedic passage only recites what some people do in spite of the rule of the śāstras. The general rule, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, is equal distribution, as stated in Jai. X. 3. 53 (*samaṁ syād-aśrutitvāt*) which is relied upon by the prima facie view in Mit. on Yāj. II. 265. From the Tai. S. it appears that both practices viz. equal division of property among all sons and giving a larger share to the eldest were wellknown in those far-off ages. Āp. II. 6.