Page:The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy Vol 2.djvu/249

Rh 25. He, fourthly, quotes two extraordinary texts of Vyasu, as prohibiting the disposal, by a single parcener, of his share in the immoveables, under the notion that each parcener has his property in the whole estate jointly possessed. These texts are as follow: “A single parcener may not, without consent of the rest, make a sale or gift of the whole immoveable estate, nor of what is common to the family.” “Separated kinsmen, as those who are unseparated, are equal in respect of immoveables: for one has not power over the whole, to give, mortgage, or sell it.” Upon which the author, of the Dayubhagu remarks, Ch. II. Sec. 27:) “It shrouldshould [sic] not be alleged that by the texts of VaysuVyasu [sic] one person has not power to make a sale, or other transfer of such property. For here also (in the very instance of land held in common) as in the case of other goods, there equally exists a property consisting in the power of disposal at pleasure.” That is, a partner has, in common with the rest, an undisputed property existing either in the whole of the moveables and immoveables, or in an undivided portion of them; he, therefore, should not be, or cannot be, prevented from executing, at his pleasure, a transfer of his right to another by a sale, gift, or mortgage of it.

26. In reply to the question, what might be the consequence of disregard to the prohibition conveyed by the above texts of Vyasu? the author says: “But the texts of Vyasu exhibiting a prohibitonprohibition [sic], are intended to shew a moral offence; since the family is distressed by a sale, gift or other transfer, which argues a dispositoindisposition [sic] in the person to make an ill use of his power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or other transfer." (Ch. II. Sec. 28). A partner is as completely a legal