22. The author afterwards reasons on those passages that are of seemingly contrary authority; first quoting the text of Yagnuvulkyu, as follows. “The ownership of father and son is the same in land which was acquired by his father, or in a corrody, or in chattels.” He adopts the explanation given to his text by the most learned, the ancient Oodyot, affirming that it “properly signifies, as rightly explained by the learned Oodyot, that, when one of two brothers, whose father is living, and who have not received allotments, dies leaving a son, and the other survives, and the father afterwards deceases, the text, declaratory of similar ownership, is intended to obviate the conclusion, that the surviving son alone obtains his estate, because he is next of kin. As the father has ownership in the grandfather’s estate; so have his sons, if he be dead.” Ch. II. Sec. 9, (page 25.) The author then points out, that such interpretation given to the text, as declares the claims of a grandson upon the estate of his grandfather equal to those of his father, while the father is living, is palpably objectionable; for, if sons had ownership during the life of their father, in their grandfather’s estate, then should a division be made between two brothers, one of whom has male issue, and the other has none, the children of that one would participate, since (according to the opposite opinion) they have equally ownership?” Ch. II. Sec. n, (p. 26.) He next quotes Vishnoo: “When a father separates his sons from himself, his will regulates the division of his own acquired wealth. But in the estate inherited from the grandfather, the ownership of father and son is equal.” Upon this text the author of the Dayubbagu justily remarks in the following terms. “This
