Page:The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 2.djvu/244

232 19. I now proceed to the consideration of the last point, as the ground on which the change proposed is alleged to be founded. To judge of its validity we should ascertain whether the interpretations given by the author of the Dayubhagu, to the sacred texts, touching the subject of free disposal by a father of his ancestral property, are obviously at variance with those very texts, or if they are conformable to sound reason and the general purport of the passages cited collectively on the same subject. With this view I shall here repeat, methodically, the series of passages quoted by the author of the Dayubhagu, relating to the above point, as well as his interpretation and elucidation of the same.

20. To shew the independent and exclusive right of a father in the property he possesses, (of course with the exception of estates entailed) the author first quotes the following text of Munoo: “After the (death of the) father and the mother, the brethren, being assembled, must divide equally the paternal estate: For they have not power over it, while their parents live. Ch. I. Sec. 14, (p. 8). He next quotes Devulu: “When the father is deceased, let the sons divide the father’s wealth; for sons have not ownership while the father is alive and free from defect.” Ch. I. Sec. 18, (p. 9.) After a long train of discussion, the author appeals to the above texts as the foundaton of the law he has expounded, by saying, “Hence the text of Munoo, and the rest (as Devulu) must be taken as shewing, that sons have not a right of ownership in the wealth of the living parents, but in the estates of both when deceased." Ch. I. Sec. 30, (p. 13 and 14.)

21. To illustrate the positonposition [sic] that the father is the