The schools of Hindu Law and the key differences between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, focusing on aspects relevant for a judiciary mains answer, with a focus on case law.
Schools of Hindu Law: An Overview
Hindu Law, as it exists today, evolved primarily from two main schools of thought:
- Mitakshara School: This is the dominant school, prevailing in most parts of India (except for West Bengal and Assam). It is based on the commentary written by Vijnaneshwara on the Yajnavalkya Smriti.
- Dayabhaga School: This school prevails primarily in West Bengal and Assam. It is based on the commentary written by Jimutavahana on the same Yajnavalkya Smriti.
In some classifications, subsidiary/sub-schools are also mentioned, which are basically variations within the Mitakshara framework based on interpretations of specific customs or texts in certain regions:
- Benares School: A sub-school of Mitakshara, prominent in Uttar Pradesh. It is known for its emphasis on customs for adoption.
- Bombay School: Another sub-school of Mitakshara, prevailing in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and parts of Karnataka. It is more liberal in recognizing customs and gives importance to female heirs.
- Madras School: Prevails in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and parts of Kerala.
- Punjab School: It recognized many local customs which depart from the general principles of Mitakshara.
Mitakshara vs. Dayabhaga: Detailed Comparison
Here's a breakdown of the key differences, presented in a way that's useful for a judiciary mains answer:
| Feature | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Vijnaneshwara's commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti | Jimutavahana's commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti |
| Inheritance | Principle of Ownership: Right by birth (Vesting) A son acquires a right to the ancestral property by birth itself. "Coparcenary" is a key concept. | Principle of Ownership: Right upon death of the previous owner (Divesting) No one acquires a right by birth. Inheritance opens only upon the death of the owner. |
| Coparcenary | Exists. A coparcenary is a smaller body within a joint Hindu family, consisting of the senior-most male member and three generations lineally descended from him. | Does not exist. The concept of coparcenary is not recognized. |
| Father's Power | A father has limited power over ancestral property. He cannot alienate it without the consent of the coparceners, except for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. | A father has absolute power over his property, whether ancestral or self-acquired. He can dispose of it as he pleases, even by will. |
| Alienation | A coparcener's interest is fluctuating. Until partition, no coparcener can claim a definite share. Alienation of a coparcener's undivided interest is generally not allowed. Exceptions exist, especially now after amendments. | A heir has a definite share in the property, even before partition. A heir can alienate his/her share even before partition. |
| Devolution | Survivorship: Upon the death of a coparcener, his interest merges into the coparcenary property. It devolves to the surviving coparceners. | Inheritance: Upon the death of a person, his/her share devolves by inheritance to his/her heirs. |
| Women's Rights | Traditionally, women had limited rights. Now, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005) has granted daughters equal coparcenary rights. | Women have relatively better rights. A widow, for example, can inherit her husband's share. |
| Joint Family | Joint family is a key feature. | Joint family can exist, but the principles of ownership and inheritance are different. |
Case Laws (Crucial for Mains)
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen (1986 AIR 1753): This landmark case, while interpreting the Hindu Succession Act, discussed the impact on the concept of ancestral property after the Act. It clarified that after 1956, property inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather, or great-grandfather is treated as his individual property, not as ancestral property in which his sons would have a birthright. It highlights the shift in the Mitakshara School due to statutory changes.
- Relevance: Illustrates the evolving nature of Mitakshara principles due to legislation. Useful for discussing the modern relevance of the schools.
State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram (AIR 1969 SC 1330): This case deals with the power of the Karta (manager) of a Hindu joint family to alienate property. It emphasizes that under Mitakshara, the Karta can alienate property only for legal necessity, benefit of the estate, or with the consent of all adult coparceners.
Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Dulhin Rameshwari Juer Deo (AIR 1952 Patna 157): This case discusses the differences in the rights of a Hindu widow under the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools, particularly with respect to the right to partition.
Jogesh Chandra Das v. Ucharan Chakravarthy (AIR 1967 Assam 67): This case illustrates the application of Dayabhaga principles in Assam and the rights of heirs upon the death of a property owner.
Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343: This case is very important regarding the rights of daughters as coparceners after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act and the concept of notional partition.
How to Structure Your Answer in the Mains Exam
- Introduction: Briefly define Hindu Law and mention its sources (Shruti, Smriti, customs, etc.). State that Hindu Law is primarily governed by two schools: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga.
- Explain Mitakshara: Briefly describe the Mitakshara school, its geographical prevalence, and its core principle of right by birth.
- Explain Dayabhaga: Briefly describe the Dayabhaga school, its geographical prevalence, and its core principle of inheritance upon the death of the owner.
- Compare and Contrast: Use a tabular format, as shown above, to clearly present the differences. This makes your answer easy to read and understand.
- Case Laws: Integrate relevant case laws to support your points. Don't just list the cases; explain how they relate to the specific differences you've highlighted.
- For example: "The principle of limited power of alienation by the father under Mitakshara was highlighted in State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, where..."
- Impact of Legislation: Discuss how the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (and the 2005 amendment) has impacted both schools, particularly concerning women's rights. Mention cases like Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen and Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar. Explain that while the Act has brought some uniformity, the fundamental differences in the schools regarding the mode of devolution remain.
- Conclusion: Summarize the key differences and reiterate the importance of understanding these differences for interpreting Hindu Law, especially in matters of succession and property rights. Discuss the modern relevance of these schools.
Key Takeaways for Mains Exam Preparation
- Clarity is crucial: Examiners need to see that you understand the fundamental principles.
- Structure matters: A well-organized answer gets better marks.
- Case laws are essential: They demonstrate your understanding of how the law is applied.
- Understand the impact of legislation: Don't just describe the traditional schools; discuss how they've been modified by modern laws.
TEAM
LEGALFLOW { JUDICIARY BY CHAUDHARY SIR }
0 Comments