Central University of South Bihar

School of Law and Governance

Project Work on the Topic – Schools of Hindu Law: A

Submitted to: - Mr. Mani Pratap

Submitted by :-
Kumar Pritam
B.A.LL.B(H.), 4th Sem.,
E. No. – CUSB1813125048
Section-B, Session-2018-2023
 TABLE OF CONTENT

S.No Contents Page

1. TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3
3. INTRODUCTION 4
4. SCHOOL OF HINDU LAW 5
5. MITAKSHRA & DAYABHAGA SCHOOLS 5-9
6. MIGRATIONS & THE SCHOOLS 10-12
7. CONCLUSION 13
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 14

2|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I hereby take the opportunity thank Mr. Mani Pratap for his consent and the inspiration that she
radiates. His jovial behaviour and ease making attitude eased my tension and the initial doubts
that I had about my potentialities. I also want to thank my friends who helped me a lot in
preparing this project. I have also taken help from several books and websites for doing this.
Ultimately, I once again thank Mani Sir, who made indelible impact on me which shall go
beyond the pages of this project and reflect in all my endeavours of life.

Hoping Acceptance and Appreciation from you, I hereby submit this project.

--Kumar Pritam

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION
With the exceptions of the hindus and the muslims, the other communities have no school. In the
case of hindus, schools have some regional connotation, while it is not so in case of muslims, it
is as per sects.

Hindu law has two main schools: the Mitakshara school and Dayabhaga. The former has four
sub-schools: the Mithila, the Benares, the Bombay and the south India or the Dravida. The sub
schools prevail in their respective jurisdictions and some matters modify the Mitakshara law;
otherwise it is the Mitakshara law which prevails. The Dayabhaga school of Hindu law prevails
in the Bengal, Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Mizoram, Arunachal and Meghalaya. In rest of India, it
is the Mitakshara school which has its sway. The Mitakshara School prevails even in the
Dayabhaga jurisdiction on all those mattes on which Dayabhaga is silent.

The peculiarity of school of Hindu law is that if a Hindu governed by a school migrates to
another region (where different school has jurisdiction), he will continue to be governed by his
own school, unless he gives up school and adopts the law of the place where hi has settled. In the
modern Hindu law, schools have relevance only in respect of the uncodified Hindu law; they
have lost all their relevance in regard to the codified Hindu law.

Another important aspect of Hindu law is that a person will be governed by custom if he is able
to establish a custom applicable to him, even though such a custom is in derogation to Hindu
law. Although the codified Hindu law overrides all rules and customs of Hindu laws, yet such
has been the impact of custom that in certain areas custom has been expressly saved.

4|Page
 SCHOOL OF HINDU LAW
The codified hindu law lays down uniform law for all hindus. In the codified areas of hindu law,
there is no scope for existence of schools. The schools of hindu law have relevance only in
respect of the uncodified areas of hindu law.

Schools of Hindu law emerged with the emergence of the era of commentaries and digests. The
commentator put his own gloss on the ancient texts, and his authority having been received in
one and rejected in another part of India, schools with conflicting doctrines arose.

There are two main schools of hindu law :

1. The mitakshara schools, and

The mitakshara school has the following sub-schools:

i. Benares school,
ii. Mithila school,
iii. Maharashtra school or Bombay school, and
iv. Dravida or Madras school

Mitakshara and Dayabhaga School

The Mitakshara by Vijnanehvara or Vijnana Yogin is the most celebrated and authoritative of all
the commentaries of the Yajnavalkya Smriti. The age of Vijnaneshvara has been fixed by recent
research to be the latter part of the 11th century

The Mitakshara in its turn has been the subject of several commentaries. Amongst them the best
known are the ‘Subodhini’ of Visveswarabhatta (1360-1390 AD) and the ‘Balambhatti’ said to
have been written by Balakrihna alias Balabhatt’ in the name of his 0mother Lakshmidevi
toward the end of the 18th century AD.

The authority of Mitakshara is supreme throughout India except in Bengal and became the
leading school in Bengal also. The mitakshara is considered as a great authority in all natters in
respect where of there is no conflict between it and the dayabhaga.

5|Page
By his time, caste system was , it seems, fully entrenched. He classified all society into four
classes, the Brahmin, the kshatriya, the vaishya and lastly the shudra of whom the first three
were called twice-born(Dwija) whose life to enformed to vedic requirement.he lays down
minutre rule regarding pregnancy and the rites to be performed from time to time till the sacred
thread ceremony. Regarding marriage, he forbids marriage between a shudra and a twice –born
and he advocates limited polygamy. He recites the eight form of marriage, out reprobates
remarriageof widows or their duty to raie up their chidern to their deceased huband. Inter-
castemarriage were limited to the three castes known as the twice-born. The seconde part of his
work deals with vyavhar and embrace is in great detail and is the basis of the present day law of
partition. The rest of the work deals with boundary disputes, misdemeanors, bailment, contract of
service , law of mortgage, the allowable intrestin loans, the rules of evidence, duties of kings, etc.

2. Dayabhag:

The Dayabhag School which finds it following mainly in Bengal and Assam is not a commentary
on any particular code but is a digest of all the codes. It has been written by Jimutavahana who
lived sometime in the 12th century. Dayabhaga is not divided into any sub-school.

Some consider the Mitakshara is the orthodox school whereas the Dayabhag , or the Bengal
school, as it is sometimes called , is the reformed school of Hindu law. The Mitakshara and
Dayabhaga schools differ on important issue as regard the rule of inheritance.

The author of the Dayabhaga was Jimuta Vahan, of whom very little is known except that he was
a Brahmin of the Paribhadriya class and was the author of another work ‘Kalavivek’. Jamuta
Vahan professes to base his view on the manusmriti which he says have not been fully
comprehended. Basing his view on other smriti-writer and sages, he refuted the doctrines of the
Baneras and Mithila schools and with a candour characteristic of his able reasoning his own
views.

According to Siromani, Jimuta refers to the opinion of Srikara, Bhajdeva, Vishwaraf and
Govindaraja. In the words of Prof. Sarkar, “The Dayabhag was supposed to have been written by

6|Page
way of revolt against many artificial and sometimes even absurd principles of inhertence, based
on theory of propinquity conscious of the shortcomings and limitation of Vijnaneswar’s doctrine.
Jimuta-Vahana propounds the theory of spiritual benefit for the governance of the rules of
succession. The immediate benefit of this new theory was the inclusion of many cognates in the
list of heirs, excluded by the Mitakshara which was mainly agnatic”.1

Without accepting the set of propositions laid down by other commentators, he deals with the
subject of inheritance, partition and succession as an objective science with a forthright and
direct approach. He appeals to reasons and logic and not merely to precepts, precedents or
postulations. Examining the roots by digging up various stand points, he plunges into the heart of
the subject to come up with doctrine that were close to practicality and rationality.
In the Dayabhag School, besides the authority of Dayabhag, the following commentaries were
followed: (i) Dayatatva; (ii) Dayakram – sangrah; (iii) Virmitrodaya and Dattaka chandrika.

Sub-school of Mitakshara:

The Mitakshara School may be subdivided into four schools:

(i) Dravida School or Madras School:

In addition to the Mitakshara, in southern India certain law books 2 are treated as of great
authority, they are:

(a) Parasara Madhaviya:

This great work by Madhavacharya is a commentary on Parasara Smriti. The great Acharya was
the guru (Teacher) and Minister of Bukka and Harihara who were the founders of the
Vijayanagar dynasty. Madhavacharya crowned Harihara in 1335 A.D. and died in 1386. It is
probable that this commentary was composed for governing the Vijayanagar Empire.

(b) Smritichandrika:

This work by Devanna Bhatta deals with the subject of inheritance. It was also composed during
the, Vijayanagar Empire. It is a Nibandha or digest of law.

(c) Saraswativilasa:
1
[Prof. V. C. Sarkar – Hindu Law p.48]
2
Hindu Law and Usage (11th Ed.), 55.

7|Page
This was a work of the great ruler Prataparudra Deva, who belonged to the Gajapati dynasty and
ruled Orissa between 1497-1539. This author should not be confused with the Kakatiya ruler of
that name who ruled Warangal and was captured by the Delhi Sultan in 1322. The probable date
of the Saraswati Vilasa is 1515. The absence of any reference to Parasaramadhaviya in this work
is explained by the fact that the Gajapathi rulers of Orissa were hostile to Vijaynagar. Krishna
Deva Raya of the Vijayanagar dynasty married the daughter of Gajapathi (Tukka Devi alias
Jaganmohini) in 1516 and brought that hostility to an end.

(d) Vyavahara Nimaya:

This is a work of Varadaraja who lived in the 17th Century.

(ii) Bombay School:

Bombay School In addition to the Mitakshara, the Bombay School attaches great importance to
the following works:

(a) Vyavahara Mayukha:

Mayukha means a ray. Each part of his work Bhagavanta Bhaskara is called a Mayukha by the
author Nilakantha Bhatta. The Vyavahara Mayukha is the part dealing with secular law. The
entire work is an encyclopaedia of religious and civil law and was composed between 1610 and
1645.

(b) Nirnaya Sindhu:

This was composed in 1612 by Kamalakara who was the son of Nilakantha Bhatta’s paternal
uncle. There is internal evidence to indicate that between Kamalakara and Nilakantha there was
rivalry in the field of scholarship.

(iii) Benaras School:

The Benaras School recognises the following as authoritative in addition to Mitakshara.

(a) Viramitrodaya:

The author of this digest is Mitra Misra, who composed it between 1610-1640 under the
patronage of King Virasimhadeva, a scion of the Kasiraju family who ruled at Orchha from 1605
to 1627. In Vedachela v. Subramania, 1921 (48) IA 349, the Privy Council observed: “The
8|Page
Viramitrodaya holds in Western India a high position. It supplements many gaps and omissions
in the earlier commentaries and illustrates and elucidates with logical preciseness the meaning
doubtful prescription”. In Girdkarilal v. Bengal Government, 1868 (12) MIA 448, the Privy
Council had observed:

“The Viramitrodaya is properly receivable as an exposition of what may have been left doubtful
by the Mitakshara and declaratory of the law of the Benaras School”.

(b) Nirnayasindhu:

This work is received as an authority not only in Western India but also in the Benaras School.
Similarly in Western India Viramitrodaya is received as an authority.

(iv) Mithila School:

The important authorities of this School are:

(a) Vivada Chintamani:

This is a Nibandha work of Vachaspati Misra and was written under the patronage of King
Bhairavendra of Mithila in the 15th Century.

(b) Vivada Ratnakara:

This a Nibandha work (digest) written by Chandeswara, the Chief Judge and Minister of King
Harasimhadeva of Mithila. It was composed in the 14th Century.

(c) Madanaparijata:

This was composed under the patronage of King Madanapala who ruled in Kastha on the Jumna.
It was composed between 1360 and 1390 by Visweswarabhatta who was also the author of
Subodhini, a commentary on the Mitakshara.

Migration and the School

9|Page
A Hindu is governed by the law of the place to which he originally belonged. On migration he
continues to be governed by the law of the original domicile. A Hindu family carries with it, its
law including customs of locality and the burden is heavy on the party alleging otherwise.

Where a Hindu Marwari governed by the Benaras school of law migrated from Jodhpur it was
held that the Hindu Womens Right to Property Act, 1937 applied to his estate on the ground that
law does not hold a migrating family to be immune from changes introduced in the law of its
origin by statutes governing all Hindus subsequent to its migration.

It is a settled law that there is a presumption that parties residing in particular area are governed
by the lex loci unless migration is proved. The burden of proving that the family came from
some other tract and is, therefore, governed by some other branch of Hindu law is on the party
which asserts it.

The ordinary presumption is that a Hindu is governed by the law of the land where he resides.
This presumption is, however, not based on the theory of lex loci but on the ground of its being a
personal law.

Their Lordships of the Privy Council said, where a Hindu family migrates from one part of India
to another, prima fade they carry with them their personal law, and if they are alleged to have
become subject to a new local custom, their new custom must be affirmatively proved to have
been adopted but when such a family emigrates to another country, and being themselves
Mohammedans, settle among Mohammedans, the presumption that they have accepted the law of
the people when they have joined seems to their lordships to be one that should be much more
readily made.

The analogy is that of a change of domicile on settling in a new country rather than the analogy
of a change of custom on migration within India. If nothing is known about a man except that he
lived in certain place, it will be assumed that his personal law is the law which prevails in that
place. In such a case domicile plays an important role, e.g., Khojas and Kutchi Memons of Kutch
and Kathiawad on migration to Madras and other parts of India retained the (Mitakshara) rules of
Hindu law in general not only in matters of succession and inheritance but also with regard to
their property including the Hindu concept of coparcenary and survivorship.

Differentiation between ‘Mitakshara’ and ‘Dayabhaga’ Schools of Hindu Law

(1) As Regards Joint Property:

1. Under the Mitakshara, The right to property of the coparcener arises by birth; hence the son is
a co-owner with the father in ancestral property, whereas under the Dayabhaga the right to
property arises after the death of the last owner. Hence the son has no right to ancestral property
during father’s life time.

2. Under the Mitakshara the father has the restricted power of alienation of ancestral property
whereas the father has the absolute power of alienation of ancestral property under the
Dayabhaga School.

3. Under the Mitakshara the son can ask for partition of the joint family property even against the
father, whereas under the Dayabhaga the son cannot demand partition against the father.

4. The interest of a member of joint family under the Mitakshara would, on his death pass to
other members by survivorship whereas under the Dayabhaga, the interest of a member would,
on his death, pass by inheritance to his heirs namely widow, son and daughters.

5. Under the Mitakshara, members of joint family cannot dispose of their shares while undivided,
whereas under the Dayabhaga any member of joint family may sell or give away his share even
when undivided.

The modern Hindu Law does not affect the joint family system of Hindus and therefore both the
Schools with their differences still operate. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affects the
Mitakshara joint family only on its fringes.

(2) As Regards Inheritance:

11 | P a g e
1. Under the Mitakshara, inheritance is governed by the rule of consanguinity i.e., blood
relationship, whereas under the Dayabhaga inheritance is governed by the rule of religious
efficacy i.e., offering of Pindas.

2. Under the Mitakshara, cognates are postponed to agnates but under the Dayabhaga some
cognates like sister’s sons are preferred to many agnates.

3. As regards the recognition of the doctrine of factum valet, Mitakshara extended its recognition
to a very limited extent but Dayabhaga has extended its full recognition to it.

Under the modern Hindu Law, the difference between two main schools is no longer tenable.
Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, we have one uniform law of succession for all Hindus, to
whatever school or sub-school they may belong.

CONCLUSION

12 | P a g e
Hindu is one of the most ancient religion on the world. So the laws of hindu are came from
differentsources. In ancient times the hindus are maintain only the law which they believe that
come from Diety, but now they have also some manmade law. All the sources of the law of
ancient and the modern are mentioned above. Both schools has played very important role in
their aspects. The differentiation between them was not such kind that make the difference in
their jurisprudential life but they really exists.

The peculiarity of school of Hindu law is that if a Hindu governed by a school migrates to
another region (where different school has jurisdiction), he will continue to be governed by his
own school, unless he gives up school and adopts the law of the place where hi has settled. In the
modern Hindu law, schools have relevance only in respect of the uncodified Hindu law; they
have lost all their relevance in regard to the codified Hindu law.

Another important aspect of Hindu law is that a person will be governed by custom if he is
able to establish a custom applicable to him, even though such a custom is in derogation to
Hindu law. Although the codified Hindu law overrides all rules and customs of Hindu laws, yet
such has been the impact of custom that in certain areas custom has been expressly saved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

13 | P a g e
 BOOKS :-

 Dr. Diwan Paras- family law; Tenth edition reprint, 2014 ISBN: 81-89530-33-x
 Dr. Paras Diwan- Modern Hindu law; twenty second edition reprint, 2013
 S.R. Myneni – Hindu Law(FamilyLaw I) First Ed.(Reprint)- 2010 ISBN: 978-93-
80553-64-3
 Sharma, Dr.B.K, Hindu Law, 1st Ed., Central Law Publishers, 2007

WEBSITES :-
 http://www.shareyouressays.com/117391/what-are-the-sub-schools-of-the-
mitakshara

14 | P a g e