History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.t2.300

v4.c63.t2.300

*Reunion.*—A reunion properly so called can take place only between those who were parties to the original partition. Reunion, therefore, postulates three stages, viz. (1) joint family, (2) partition between members of a joint family, (3) an intention and an agreement, express or implied, to reunite in estate among members who were parties to the partition. If persons who had separated in interest merely stay together, that is not reunion in law, as said by the Sm. C. II. p. 302 and Vivādacandra¹⁴⁷⁴ p. 82. The Vivādacandra quoting Viṣṇupurāṇa says that reunion may be implied from a course of conduct, even though an express agreement cannot be proved. There is a divergence of views as to who can reunite. The Mit., the Dāyabhāga¹⁴⁷⁵, the Sm. C. hold, literally construing a verse of Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 381 verse 72), that a member of a joint family when once divided can reunite only with his father, brother or paternal uncle, but not with any other relation (such as a paternal uncle's son or paternal grand-father), while the V. C. (p. 157), the V. Mayūkha (p. 146), the V. P. (p. 533) hold that the members expressly mentioned by Bṛ. are only illustrative and that a person may reunite with *any* member who was a party to the original partition. A reunited person is called *saṁsṛṣṭa* or *saṁsṛṣṭin*¹⁴⁷⁶ (who has reunited wealth). The subject of reunion has a comparatively ancient history. Gaut. 28. 26 states the general rule that on the death of a reunited co-parcener the surviving reunited member succeeds to the share of the deceased. Kauṭ. (III. 5 p. 160) states¹⁴⁷⁷ that those, who live together though they may have no ancestral estate or do so after dividing their ancestral estate, may divide their reunited estate again in equal shares. Manu IX. 210 (= Viṣṇu Dh. S. 18. 41) is similar to it.