Quandoque bonus dormitat Jīmūtavūhanas?

Summary

The Problem

Jīmūtavāhana's Dāyabhāga twice quotes the same verse from the Bṛhaspatismṛti (K.V. Rangaswami Aiyangar's ed. 26.9):

pitror abhāve bhrātṝṇāḥ vibhāgaḥ sampradarśitaḥ ∣

mātur nivṛtte rajasi jīvator api śasyate ∣ ∣

After the death of both parents, division of the property among brothers has been ordained (to take place). It may take place even in their lifetime, if the mother be past child-bearing. (Trans. Jolly 25.1)

Immediately after the first citation (2.2) Jīmūtavāhana comments:

nāsya vacanasya pitṛdhanagocaratvam.

This text does not bear on partition of their father's property. (Trans. Colebrooke; emphasis added)

Following the second citation of the same Bṛhaspati verse, the Dāyabhāga (3.11) has this comment:

nivṛttarajaskāyāṃ mātari jīvantyāṃ vibhāgasya mātṛdhanāgocaratvānupapatter ubhayābhāvoktavibhāgasyaiva jīvator apīty apikāreṇa śastatvakīrtanād ubhayor abhāve bhrātṛvibhāgaḥ pitṛdhanagocara evāvadhāryate.

Since partition while the mother is living cannot be relative to the mother's particular property, and since the authorised partition after the demise of both parents, which is indicated by the particle in the phrase “even while they are both living,” is thus pronounced to be proper; partition among brothers after the death of parents is evidently relative to the father's property. (Trans. Colebrooke; emphasis added)

There is nothing in the notes to Colebrooke's translation to signal a possible inconsistency. Śrikṛṣṇatarkālaṃkāra (at Dbhā 3.11), on the other hand, saw a problem and found it necessary to defend Jīmūtavāhana:

pitṛdhanagocara eva iti: pitāmahadhanasyāpi pituḥ svatvavattvāt pitṛdhanatvena tasyāpi saṃgrahaḥ. evakāreṇa mātṛdhanamātravyavacchedaḥ. tenāsya vacanasya na prāguktapitāmahadhanagoc aratvavirodhaḥ.