Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools of Hindu Law
1. Introduction
Hindu law has two main schools regarding inheritance and property succession:
Mitakshara School: Followed in most of India (except Bengal and Assam).
Dayabhaga School: Followed mainly in Bengal, Assam, and Tripura.
Both schools deal with the inheritance of property but differ in their approach to joint family property, coparcenary rights, and women’s inheritance rights.
2. Mitakshara School
Origin:
Based on the Mitakshara, a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti written by Vijnaneshwara (12th century).
Applies in most parts of India, except Bengal and Assam.
Key Features:
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Coparcenary | Arises by birth. Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons become coparceners. |
| Joint Family Property | Property inherited by coparceners jointly, not individually. |
| Karta | The eldest male coparcener manages the property. |
| Doctrine of Survivorship | Property devolves on surviving coparceners on the death of one. |
| Women’s Rights | Women are excluded from coparcenary but may get maintenance or stridhan (property given to them). |
| Partition | Divides coparcenary property among members, ending joint ownership. |
Mitakshara Case Law
K.K Verma v. Union of India (1965 AIR 1664):
Recognized Mitakshara coparcenary as a legal entity in India.
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020 Supreme Court Case):
This landmark ruling held that daughters have the same coparcenary rights as sons under Mitakshara law. It reformed the traditional rule excluding women from coparcenary rights.
3. Dayabhaga School
Origin:
Based on the Dayabhaga text written by Jimutavahana (13th century).
Applicable primarily in Bengal, Assam, and Tripura.
Key Features:
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| No Coparcenary by Birth | Property is not held jointly by birthright coparceners. |
| Individual Succession | Property is divided among heirs immediately after the death of the owner. |
| Rights of Women | Women have better inheritance rights and can inherit property. |
| No Doctrine of Survivorship | Property does not automatically pass to survivors; it is divided among heirs as per law. |
| Partition Not Required | Since property is individual, no partition like Mitakshara. |
Dayabhaga Case Law
Hiralal Mondal v. P.K. Basu (AIR 1959 Cal 294):
Affirmed the Dayabhaga principle that inheritance begins only after the death of the owner and the heirs immediately get their share.
Bishun Narain Prasad Singh v. Indar (AIR 1962 Pat 206):
Held that daughters under Dayabhaga school can inherit equally with sons.
4. Major Differences Between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga
| Aspect | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
| Coparcenary | Exists by birth; joint ownership by male descendants. | No coparcenary; property is individual. |
| Right of Women | Women excluded from coparcenary rights (but can inherit stridhan). | Women can inherit property as heirs. |
| Partition | Necessary to divide joint property. | Not necessary; property is divided on death. |
| Doctrine of Survivorship | Exists; property passes to surviving coparceners. | Does not exist; property divided among heirs. |
| Territorial Application | Most of India (except Bengal, Assam). | Bengal, Assam, Tripura. |
5. Summary
| School | Coparcenary by Birth | Doctrine of Survivorship | Women’s Inheritance Rights | Territorial Application |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitakshara | Yes | Yes | Limited (Reformed by Vineeta Sharma) | Most of India |
| Dayabhaga | No | No | Better rights | Bengal, Assam, Tripura |
Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments