TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER: Dayabhaga and mitakshara laws of succession.

By

Name of the Student:

S V S S G AKHIL

Roll No. 19LLB063

Semester:
IV SEMESTER

Name of the Program:

5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member:
Dr. Ganta Satyanarayana,
M.A., PGDHR., M.S.W.,
M.L., Ph.D., (LL.D).,
Adjunct Professor

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 531035
ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................3

LIST OF ABBREVIATION…..................................................................4

ABSTRACT...............................................................................................5

OBJECTIVE OF THE
STUDY RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH QUESTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
SOURCES
I. INTRODUCTION…..............................................................................7

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND….......................................................8

III. JOINT FAMILY UNDER HINDU LAW…........................................10

IV......................................MITAKSHARA SCHOOL OF HINDU LAW… 10

V.RIGHTS OF COPARCENER UNDER MITAKSHARA SCHOOL.....11

VI.KARTA & ITS POWERS….................................................................12

VII.DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF THOUGHT AND FEAUTRES…........13

VII.DIFFFERENCE BETWEEN COPARCENAR AND JOINT HINDU FAMILY. 14

VIII.FEATURES OF HINDU COPARCENARY......................................15

IX.COPARCENARY UNDER DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF JOINT FAMILY 17

2
X.DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAYABHAGA AND MITAKSHARA.....20

VIII.CONCLUSION…...............................................................................21

IX.REFERENCES….................................................................................22

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude and deep regards to Dr. Ganta
Satyanarayana,M.A., PGDHR., M.S.W., M.L., Ph.D., (LL.D).,Adjunct Professor for her
guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement throughout the course of this project “
Dayabhaga and mitakshara laws of succession”. I take this opportunity to thank all my
seniors and for their constant support and guidance throughout the making of my project.
This Project had helped me a lot in understanding the concept of Dayabhaga and mitakshara
laws of succession. I have tried my best to collect information about this Research paper in
various possible ways to depict clear picture about the topic.
LIST OF ABBREVIATION

S.NO ABBREVIATIO FULL FORMS

NS
1. Anr. Another

2. Sec. Section

3. HC High Court

4. RAJ Rajasthan

5. IPC Indian Penal Code

6. Ors Others

7. Ed Edition

8. SC Supreme Court

9. SCC Supreme Court Cases

1o. Cr.p.c Code of Criminal Procedure

11. UOI Union of India

12. v. Versus
 SYNOPSIS

ABSTRACT :

A Hindu joint family consists of the common ancestor and all of his lineal male descendants of
either age, as well as the common ancestor's wife or wives (or widows), and unmarried
daughters of the lineal male descendants. The presence of a shared ancestor is needed for the
creation of a joint family, but it is not required for its continuity. “A joint Hindu family
consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives
and unmarried daughters,” writes Sir Dinshah Mulla. When a daughter marries, she ceases to
be a part of her father's family and becomes a member of her husband's.

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY:
The Main Aim of the Study is

a) To do research on the Dayabhaga and mitakshara laws of succession.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The research will be doctrinal kind of research by referring books and other online resources.
Nature of the study is

i. Explanatory study

ii. Descriptive study

iii. Analytical study

RESEARCH QUESTION:

1) Does Mitakshara school grant females or wives some rights in their families' ancestral
property?
2) Is the Dayabhaga school's property devolution system based on inheritance or not

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the study is limited to Hindu succession act,1956 only.

SOURCES:
 1) Primary sources: The primary sources of the study are the case laws which were
decided by supreme court and high courts.
2) Secondary sources: The secondary sources of this study are publication of books
and articles.

INTRODUCTION

In Hindu culture, a single and undivided family is the standard. Not only in estate, but even in
food and worship, an undivided Hindu family is commonplace. The involvement of a joint
estate is not needed to form a joint family, and a family that does not own any property may
also be considered joint. When a family's estate is joint but its members' estates are
independent, the family ceases to be joint. Simply separating diet and worship does not
constitute a separation. The property of a joint family does not cease to be joint family
property belonging to that family simply because the family is embodied by a single male
member who has all of the privileges that an absolute owner of property has. It may also have
two female members. To be called a Joint Hindu family, there must be at least two members.
Even if the properties are solely ancestral, a single male or female cannot form a Hindu joint
family. The Supreme Court ruled in Narenderanath v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax that the
word "Hindu undivided family" in the Wealth Tax Act refers to a Hindu joint family as
described in Hindu personal law, and that a joint family may include a single male member,
his wife, and daughters, and that there is nothing in the Wealth Tax Act's scheme to indicate
that a Hindu undivided family includes a single male member, his wife, and daughters, and
that there is nothing in There was a joint family in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
Gomedalli Lakshminarayan, consisting of a father and his wife, as well as a son and his wife,
with the son being the new assessee.
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Hindu School of Law is one of the oldest legal schools in the world. It's believed to be
about 6000 years old. Hindu law was developed by Hindus in order to achieve redemption and
meet everyone's needs. In other words, Hindu law was developed to benefit society as a whole.
There are two sources of knowledge at the Hindu law school. “First, the Ancient sources :
These are the sources available from ancient times and show the development of the Hindu
laws. Ancient sources are classified into four sections, namely”
Shruti,
Smriti,
Customs,
Digest and Commentaries.
Secondly, the Modern sources :
The most important modern sources are court rulings. It is known as authoritative and must be
practised by all. The customs helped in the establishment of Hindu law. Joint family is a
fundamental feature of Hindu Law, in which their shared ancestor and his male lineal
descendants, as well as other members such as wives, daughters, and unmarried males, live
together under one roof and share all in common. In both the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga
schools. The definition of joint family property applies to the region that separates them from
one another. There will be no escape for any Hindu from the Joint Family; it is likely that the
Hindu will be born into the Joint Family at some stage in the future. As a consequence, it is
specified in the Hindu Laws that each family is believed to be a Joint Family. So the emphasis
of this article will be on the Hindu Joint Family definition and the major roles played by Karta
and Coparcenary in dealing with Joint Family Land.
JOINT FAMILY UNDER HINDU LAW

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a joint family is a collective of two or more generations
and their partners who live together as a single household.. “So similarly the Hindu Joint
Family is the composition of a shared ancestor, as well as his lineal male descendants,
mothers, daughters, and so on. So, although a common ancestor is needed for the existence of
a joint family, this does not imply that the common ancestor is required for the continuity of
the family; rather, it implies that if a common ancestor dies, there is always an addition to the
lower connection of the family” So just because an upper link is removed doesn't mean the
Joint Family is over. This definition is followed by both Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, but it is
an environment where they vary. The Mitakshara concept of joint family is followed in most
parts of India, but in West Bengal, Assam, and other parts of India, the Dayabhaga concept of
joint family is followed by the people. Hindu joint family property is only inherited after the
father's death, not by birth. The scheme of property devolution is based on inheritance. After
the father's death, the legitimate heirs (sons) have definite shares. Each brother owns a
particular portion of the joint family property and therefore has the right to move his share. “If
there are no male heirs, the widow has the right to succeed to her husband's share and impose
partition. When the husband dies, the widow becomes a co-parcener with the husband's other
brothers. She has the opportunity to split her share”
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS
 Rajgopal v Padmini – “In this case, it was determined that a joint family occurs when
two or more families agree to live together by sharing their food, jobs, wealth, gains,
and so on into a common stock”
 Ram Kumar v Commr. Income Tax - It has been discovered that a Hindu Joint Family
is regarded as a unit and is headed by an individual known as Karta.
 Board of Revenue v. Muthu Kumar - In this situation, it was decided that if a son
inherits his father's separate property, even if he has a son, he would obtain it as a
separate property under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1957. In Dayabhaga
Joint Family Property, however, the son has no claim to the property by birth.
MITAKSHARA SCHOOL OF HINDU LAW:

“The Mitakshara school of Hindu law is also known as Birthright Inheritance. Mitakshara
grants a son the right to his father's property as soon as he is born. Mitakshara school of Hindu
law is practiced in all states of India except Assam and West Bengal. Vijnanesvara is thought
to have written Mitakshara between 1055 and 1126 CE” Vigneshwara wrote the Mitakshara
commentary on the Yagna Valkya Smriti. Mitakshara's followers are grouped together as “the
Mitakshara School. Mitakshara school is based on the yagnavalkya code, which was
commented on by Vigneshwara, a great thinker and legislator from Gulbarga, Karnataka.
Except for Bengal, the school is followed throughout India” Sapinda is connected to Sapinda
by blood. Birth confers the right to Hindu joint family lands. As a consequence, a son has a
claim to the property from the moment he is born. The property devolution method is focused
on survivorship. The co-share parcener's of the joint family property is not set or predictable,
since it fluctuates with the births and deaths of the co-parceners. Since the co-share
participant's in the joint family property is not certain or ascertainable, he has no full right to
transfer it Women will never be allowed to become co-parceners. However, in 1985, the
Hindu Sucession Act was amended, enabling women to become co-parceners in ancestral
property, just like men. As a result of western influence, a drastic shift has occurred. The
widow of a deceased co-parcener cannot pressure her husband's brothers to split his share.
Property rights, property transfer, and inheritance are among Mitakshara's most important
chapters. Only the male members of the family are included in Mitakshara's joint family
structure. The property is absolutely owned by the family's males. Even though Mitakshara is
a method of property inheritance, it does not provide individuals with physical property;
instead, it provides them with a share percentage of the property they own.
Females or wives have no rights in Mitakshara school; they have no “share in the ancestral land,
and only the mothers have the right to their son's share” Widows have only the right to keep
their husband's property in good order, so they have no claim to it. Except for Bengal and
Assam, the Mitakshara Rule applies throughout India. The son acquires an interest in the
ancestral property by birth under this statute, as it existed before the amendments made by “The
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005”

There are four Sub-Schools under the Mitakshara School:

1. DRAVIDIAN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT: (MADRAS SCHOOL) “It exists in South

India. In the case of adoption by a widow it has a peculiar custom that the consent of
the sapindas was necessary for a valid adoption” (‘Sapindas' – linked by blood)
Mootoo Ramalinga Sethupathy vs. Collector of Madura (Ramnad case): “The widow
Rani Parvatha Vardhani made an adoption of a son with the consent of her husband's
sapindas after the zaminder of Ramnad died without sons and in such a situation, the
zamindari would have escheated to the government” The Collector of Madhura,
however, told the widow's family that the Zamindari would escheat to the state upon
her death. The adopted son filed a complaint to get the adoption declared valid. It was
a question of whether a widow could legally adopt her child without her husband's
permission, but with his sapinda's consent. After tracing the evolution of the different
Schools of Hindu law, the Privy Council agreed that Hindu law should be
administered based on explicit proof of use, which should take precedence over the
written text of the law. “The Privy Council concluded that in the Dravida School, in
the absence of authority from the husband, a widow may adopt a son with the consent
of his kindred, based on the Smriti Chandrika and Prasara Madhviya”
2. Maharashtra School: (Bombay School of Thought) There are two more bases in
Bombay (Mumbai) in addition to the four described above. Vyavakara, Mayukha, and
 Nimaya Sindhu are their names. A full work of religious and civil laws is available at
the Bombay school.
3. Banaras School of Thought: This school of thought is present in Orissa and Bihar.
This is a Mitakshara School that has been updated.
4. Mithila School of Thought: It can be found in Uttar Pradesh near the Jamuna River.
Aside from the schools mentioned above, there are four more schools that exist today.
Vyavakara, Mayukha Nimaya, and Sindhu are the three schools.
According to Mitakshara rule, there are two forms of property devolution: 1. Devolution by
Inheritance, which applies to joint family property, and 2. Devolution by Survivorship, which
applies to property owned in severalty by the last owner.

RIGHTS OF COPARCENER UNDER MITAKSHARA SCHOOL

“Under Mitakshara School there’s a concept of community of interest and unity of possession.
The coparceners have the following rights”
 Right to maintenance: “All who lives in a joint family home is entitled to
maintenance. The female members of the family, as well as those who do not receive
any share from the family due to disqualification, or unmarried daughters, will all
receive maintenance from the Joint family”
 Right to challenge alienation: “Alienation applies to the transfer of land for some
legal purpose or for the benefit of the estate. The coparcener, karta, and the only
remaining coparceners have the right to sell the property to pay off the family's debts
or for some other legitimate reason. The coparcener may contest the alienation if the
above-mentioned individual alienates the property with some kind of improper intent
or without any clear purpose”
 Right to partition: The coparceners have the right to divide the joint family property.
Until the partition is completed, each person's shares will fluctuate and be volatile.
 “In Mitakshara Joint Family Property, a son has a right to the property from birth,
and even an illegitimate son or a widowed daughter has a right to their father's Joint
Family Property property”
 “The right to maintenance and right to survivorship will be granted to the unmarried
daughters and other members of the Joint Family, respectively. Only Joint Family
property will be inherited by the co-parcenary under Mitakshara through the principle
of succession and survivorship. Even the idea of Survivorship is not taught to sons,
and as a result, the son and father do not have a joint family”
 Under Hindu Law, coparcenary was exclusively conceived by male members of the
family, with only sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons having a claim to the
coparcenary property by birth. “A Mitakshara coparcenary's female cannot be a
coparcener, but she will still be a member of the Joint Family. So under Mitakshara a
son, son’s son, son’s son’s son can a coparcenary i.e. father and his three lineal male
descendants can be a coparcener.” For Example: Assume that a Coparcenary in a
Joint Family consists of four members, including the father and his three male lineal
descendants. They will form a coparcenary with a degree limit of four.
 “A female cannot be a part of a coparcenary under Mitakshara School's laws, either
by entering into an arrangement with members of the Joint Family or with the
coparceners. Only four-degree lineal male descendants may be coparcenary,
according to statute”
 “The coparceners obtain a birth right over the Joint Family property under
Mitakshara School, but the key issue is that the interest acquired would be fluctuating
and unpredictable. It means that the Joint Family property share will not be set or
defined until the partition is completed”
 Under Mitakshara School, a person's interests can fluctuate and be unpredictable
because birth and death will occur in the family, influencing the share of each
individual. If a coparcenary consists of a father F and two sons A and B in a Joint
Family, then if the family is partitioned, each of them will be entitled to a 1/3 share.
However, if Father (F) has another sibling, i.e. C, and the family has not been
partitioned, we can assume that each person's share would fluctuate as a result of the
addition of another family member. As a consequence, it is clear that the only way to
evaluate each person's share is to use the principle of partition.
 The Mitakshara coparcenary definition is based on the principle of a son's birth right
in joint family land. “Although every coparcenary must have a common ancestor to
begin with, it should not be presumed that every extant coparcenary is limited to four
degrees from that ancestor. When a member of a joint family is more than four
degrees removed from the last holder, he is not a coparcenar and therefore cannot
claim a partition. However, if he was fifth in line from the last holder, he would
become a member of the coparcenary and be entitled to a share on partition, unless
his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had all died” When the line between
any holder of property and the person who claims to join the coparcenary after his
death is split by more than three degrees, the line stops in that direction, and the
 survivorship is limited to those collaterals and descendants who are under the four-
degree limit.

 “Under Mitakshara law, the essence of a coparcenary is unity of ownership. The

coparcenary property belongs to the whole body of coparceners. According to
Mitakshara rule, no individual member of an undivided family can predicate, of the
joint and undivided land, that he, that particular member, has a definite share while
the family is still undivided” “His interest is a fluctuating interest, capable of being
enlarged by deaths in the family, and liable to be diminished by births in family. It is
only on partition that he becomes entitled to a definite share” The word undivided
coparcenary interest is the best way to define a coparcener's interest in coparcenary
land. If a Mitakshara coparcener dies unexpectedly, his interest is passed to the
remaining coparceners. The Supreme Court summarised the situation, arguing that
the coparcenary property is shared collectively by all coparceners in a quasi-
corporate capacity.

CASES -
 Venugopala v. Union of India- The school of Mitakshara of coparcenary is based on
the idea of a son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's
son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son The Hindu Succession Act,
1956 codified all of this, but a recent amendment to the Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 clarified that even a daughter is entitled to a coparcenary
under the joint family.
 Subhash Eknathrao Khandekar v. Pragyabai Manohar Birader - According to
Section 6 of the Act (Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 205), even a daughter
may be a coparcener, but widows of the son cannot.
 Attorney-General of Ceylon v. A. R. Arunachalam Chettiar- “A father and his son
formed a joint family in this case, which was governed by the Mitakshara School of
Hindu Law. The father and son were both Indian citizens with trading and other
interests in the region. After the undivided son died, the father became the sole
remaining coparcener of a Hindu Undivided family that included many female
members. According to the court, widows in the family, including the widow of the
predeceased son, had the right to accept coparceners into the family, and that power
was exercised after the son's death”
 Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore - In this case, a family
 made up of the father, his wife, two unmarried daughters, and an adopted son.
Following the death of the father, the question arises as to whether the Hindu joint
family's sole male surviving coparcener, his widowed mother, and sisters constitute a
Hindu undivided family within the scope of the Income Tax Act. “In this case it was
held by the court property of a joint family does not cease to belong to the family
merely because the family is represented by a single coparcener who possesses rights
which an owner of property may possess. The property which yielded the income
originally belonged to a Hindu undivided family”
 Moro Vishvanath v. Ganesh Vithal- Plaintiffs and defendants are both Udhav's
descendants. All of the defendants are his fourth cousins. The plaintiffs, on the other
hand, are fifth and sixth cousins to him. The question of whether the claimants are
entitled to sue for a partition at all under Hindu law, assuming they are undivided, is
one of great importance and complexity. Plaintiffs cannot say any property partition
descended from the common ancestor from the defendants, it was argued. It was held
that after considering the authorities cited, it seems to me that upholding the
appellants' argument that a partition could not be requested in any case by
descendants of a common ancestor, more than four degrees removed, of property
originally inherited from him would be difficult.
KARTA & ITS POWERS

Karta is an individual who rises to the top of a joint family's land. He is defined as a family
manager and occupier. Karta's position is known as Sui Generic, which means he has a one-
of-a-kind position in the Joint family land. In the Joint Family, there can be more than one
Karta. The Karta may be the family's most senior male member. His primary obligation is to
serve or act on behalf of his family members. He is a person that all of the family members
depend on because they have a fiduciary relationship and still want someone to handle and
look after the family's well-being without any problems. As a result, the Karta will look after
the females and minors in the joint family, as well as provide maintenance for them. If the
Karta fails to provide maintenance, he can be held responsible for both the maintenance and
the arrears. He is responsible for paying maintenance to the Joint family's unmarried
daughters, as well as any debts the family might have at any given time. As a result, it will be
a Karta's duty to keep the Joint Family member as well as the business going.
The following persons can be Karta in the Joint Family:

 Senior Most Male Member: It is observed in Shreeama v. Krishavenanama1othat “

the Senior male can be Karta without the agreement or consent of the coparceners and
 he hold the Kartaship”

 Junior Male MemberIn Narendra Kumar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, it was held
that a Junior Male can be Karta by mutual understanding or agreement between the
coparceners. V. Santokh Singh, M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. The Junior Karta
would not be allowed to file a lawsuit, it was agreed. In the case of Harihar Sethi v.
Ladu Kishore Sethi, the plaintiff was Harihar Sethi. The Orissa High Court ruled that
a junior coparcener may be Karta if the senior most coparcener waives his right to be
Karta.
 Female Member: Females may be Karta in the absence of a male adult member,
according to Pandurang v. Pandurang. According to the Hindu Law text, females
cannot hold the role of Karta, as mentioned in the case Commr. of Income Tax v.
Seth Govind Ram. It is a member of the Joint Family's contravention party.
Karta’s Power in The Joint Family Property.

 Power to manage

 Power to contract debt

 Power to represent

 Power to refer dispute to arbitration

 Power of acknowledgment

 Power of alienation.

DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

The inheritance law of Dayabhaga is based on the concept of spiritual gain. It was created with
the intention of eradicating the ludicrous practises surrounding property inheritance.
Dayabhaga is a common Hindu belief system that is mostly practised in West Bengal,
Jharkhand, Assam and Odisha. Dayabhaga is thought to have been written between the years
of 109o and 1130. In lawful terms, Dayabhaga is a treaty that deals with various aspects of
Hindu law, most notably inheritance. “Dayabhaga divides the property into well-defined
shares for his descendants. Dayabhaga is a system in which the sons have the right to the
property of their fathers only after the father’s death. It is only under special circumstances
that the son has the right to property before the father’s death. Under the title Dayabhaga,
Jimootavagana comments on the Yagna Valkya smriti. It does not have any sub-schools” In
several ways, it differs from Mistakshara School. The Dayabhaga School is built on the
yagnavalkya code, which was commented on by Jimutuvahana, and inheritance is based on the
concept of spiritual gain. Pinda offering, or rice ball offering to deceased ancestors, triggers it.
FEATURES OF THE DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF HINDU LAW :
• Dayabhaga gives women the right to stridhan; they have full power over it and can use it
without the consent of their husbands. It also grants widows property rights over their husbands'
shares.
• Dayabhaga is a liberal Hindu law school that is mainly found in modern societies. It is also
recognised as a progressive Hindu law school. It ensures that a person's right to individuality is
secured.
• Jimutavahana's digest on leading Smritis, called "Dayabhaga," is the source of Dayabhaga
College. It only occurs in Bengal and Assam. Partition and Succession are the only subjects
covered
• The Dayabhaga school's rule of succession is founded on the belief of religious effectiveness,
or spiritual gain, which states that the person who bestows the most religious benefit on the
deceased is entitled to inherit first, followed by the person who bestows the least religious
benefit. The doctrine of offerings and pindadana regulates the confinement of religious gain.
• Property classification under Dayabhaga - The Dayabhaga school also classifies properties in
Apratibandha Daya (Unobstructed Heritage) and SapratibandhaDaya (Unobstructed Heritage)
(obstructed Heritage). However, this school does not accept Unobstructed Heritage. Both of
them the property under this school is governed by the obstructed Heritage. All other
classification of Property under Mitakshara is similar to Dayabhaga.
• Karta - Similar to Mitakshara school, Karta will be the oldest male student. The Mitakshara
School's power, liabilities, and alienation power are identical.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOINT HINDU FAMILY AND COPARCENER

1 The presence of some kind of property is not necessary to create a Joint Hindu family, while
an ancestral property is required in Coparcenary.

2 In Hindu communities, both male and female members can be coparceners, while no female
can be a coparcener in Coparcenary.

3 Three Coparcenars are part of the Joint Hindu Family, but the Joint Hindu Family as a whole
is not made up of Coparcenars.

4 In contrast to the joint family, a Hindu coparcenary has a much narrower body. It only refers
to people who are born with a share in a joint or coparcenary land. For the time being, these
are the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons of the joint property holder, or the three
generations next to the holder of unbroken male descent. Coparcenary property is a form of
ancestral property.

5 When a Hindu inherits property from his parent, it becomes ancestral in his son's hands. In
this case, the son is said to become a coparcener with the father in relation to the inherited
land, and the coparcenary consists of the father and the son. However, this does not rule out
the possibility of a coparcenary consisting solely of the father and his sons. By birth, not only
sons, but also grandsons and great-grandsons, gain an interest in the coparcenary house.

6 Coparcenary starts with a single male ancestor and his lineal descendants in the male line
within four degrees of that ancestor, counting backwards and forwards.

FEATURES OF HINDU COPARCENARY

Up to the third generation, a person's lineal male descendants gain ownership in the ancestral
assets of that person at birth; such descendants may work out their rights at any time by
demanding partition.; “till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire
property conjointly enjoyment of the properties is common; The possession and enjoyment of
the properties is normal as a result of such co-ownership” no alienation of the property is
necessary unless it is for need, and the interest of a deceased member passes on his death to the
remaining coparceners. Any coparcener and other joint family member has a right to
maintenance from the joint family assets. So long as the family remains joint, the member's
right to maintenance continues throughout his or her life. Mitakshara law forbids female
coparceners. And the mother, despite the fact that she is entitled to maintenance.
DAYABHAGA SCHOOL ON COPARCENAR AND JOINT HINDU FAMILY:
Sons do not gain any interest in ancestral property by birth, according to Dayabhaga law. When
their father dies, their rights become clear for the first time. They inherit as heirs, not by
survivorship, such of the property as if left by him, whether separate or familial. According to
Dayabhaga rule, there can be no coparcenary between a father and sons in the strict sense since
the sons have no interest in ancestral property during their father's lifetime. The father can sell,
give, will, or otherwise dispose of ancestral property, whether movable or immovable, in the
same way that he can dispose of his separate property. Since sons do not possess any interest in
ancestral property by birth, they are unable to demand that the father divide it. As a result, a
coparcenary under Dayabhaga law may involve both males and females. Every coparcenar is
given a specific share of the land, which he owns. It does not change as a result of family births
and deaths.
COPARCENARY UNDER DAYABHAGA SCHOOL OF JOINT FAMILY
In contrast to Mitakshara, the Dayabhaga School has no idea of a joint family. There is no coparcenary
of Father, Son, Son's Son, and Son's Son's Son. Dayabhaga coparcenary only occurs after the father's
death, at which stage the son inherits his father's property and becomes a coparcenary. Dayabhaga is
only practised in a few parts of India, such as West Bengal and Assam. There is no right granted to a
son by birth in this school. When his father dies, his son has the right to inherit the land. Similarly,
when a son dies, his male or female heirs will inherit his land. “If suppose the son dies leaving
behind widows or daughter’s then they can succeed the property and becomes coparcener” The
key distinction between the two schools is that females will become coparceners here. Each coparcener
takes a particular share, resulting in a unity of ownership. Assume P is the father of three sons, B, C,
and D. When A dies, a coparcener will be created from B, C, and D. B's descendants will coparcener
when he dies, and so on. However, in the Dayabhaga college, the coparcenary cannot be made up
entirely of females; there must be a male in charge first, followed by females. So, if a man dies and
leaves behind a widow and two daughters, they will be able to inherit his property but not form a
coparcener.

IV Comparison Table between Dayabhaga and Mitakshara of Hindu Laws

Parameters of
Comparison Dayabhaga Mitakshara

Joint family The Dayabhaga system Mitakshara school

system accepts both the female and accepts only the male
the male of the family. members of the family
below the joint family.

Right to In Dayabhaga, child have In the Mitakshara

no right over property by system, the son,
property
birth and arise only grandson and great-
subsequently the death of grandson obtain the
their fathers. right to property by
birth.
 Partition The Dayabhaga system Mitakshara system does
considers a physical partition of property
separation of the property only interns of shares.
and giving dividers of
property to their respective
owners.

Rights of Gives the right to stridhan Women have no rights

woman to women and also the and can't demand
equal right in husbands' partition.
property.

Features Liberal, Right to A Conservative but

Individuality, found more more reliable system.
in modern times.

V. CONCLUSION
Under Hindu Law, coparcenary was exclusively conceived by male members of
the family, with only sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons having a claim to the coparcenary
property by birth. A Mitakshara coparcenary's female cannot be a coparcener, but she will
still be a member of the Joint Family. So, under Mitakshara, a coparcenary may be a son,
son's son. There is no coparcenary consisting of Father, son, son’s son, son’s son’s son There
is no coparcenary of Father, Son, Son's Son, and Son's Son's Son. Dayabhaga coparcenary
only occurs after the father's death, at which stage the son inherits his father's property and
becomes a coparcenary. The principle of Dayabhaga is only practised in a few parts of India,
such as West Bengal and Assam, and there is no right granted to a son by birth in this school.
When his father dies, his son has the right to inherit the land. Similarly, when a son dies, his
male or female heirs will inherit his land. The presence of any kind of property is not
necessary to form a Joint Hindu family, while an ancestral property is required in
Coparcenary. In Hindu families, both male and female members can be coparceners, while no
female can be a coparcener in Coparcenary. Coparcenars are Joint Hindu Family members,
but not all Joint Hindu Family members are Coparcenars. A Hindu coparcenary is a body that
is much smaller than a joint family. It only refers to people who are born with a share in a
joint or coparcenary land. For the time being, these are the sons, grandsons, and great-
grandsons of the joint property holder, or the three generations next to the holder of unbroken
male descent. Coparcenary property is a form of ancestral property. Karta is an individual who
rises to the top of a joint family's land. He is defined as a family manager and occupier. Karta's
position is known as Sui Generic, which means he has a one-of-a-kind position in the Joint family
land. In the Joint Family, there can be more than one Karta. The Karta may be the family's most senior
male member. His primary obligation is to serve or act on behalf of his family members. He is a
person that all of the family members depend on because they have a fiduciary relationship and still
want someone to handle and look after the family's well-being without any problems. The inheritance
law of Dayabhaga is based on the concept of spiritual gain. It was created with the intention of
eradicating the ludicrous practises surrounding property inheritance. Dayabhaga is a common Hindu
belief system that is mostly practised in West Bengal, Jharkhand, Assam and Odisha. Dayabhaga is
thought to have been written between the years of 109o and 1130. In lawful terms, Dayabhaga is a
treaty that deals with various aspects of Hindu law, most notably inheritance. The Dayabhaga
school's rule of succession is founded on the belief of religious effectiveness, or spiritual
gain, which states that the person who bestows the most religious benefit on the deceased is
entitled to inherit first, followed by the person who bestows the least religious benefit. The
doctrine of offerings and pindadana regulates the confinement of religious gain.
If a son dies and leaves behind widows or daughters, they will inherit the property and
become co-owners. The school of Mitakshara of coparcenary is based on the idea of a son's
son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's
son's son's son's son's son The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 codified all of this, but a recent
amendment to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 clarified that even a daughter is
entitled to a coparcenary under the joint family.The key distinction between the two schools
is that females will become coparceners here. Each coparcener takes a particular share,
resulting in a unity of ownership. “There is no concept of Joint Family under the Dayabhaga
School as compared to the Mitakshara. There is no coparcenary consisting of Father, son,
son’s son, son’s son’s son. Dayabhaga coparcenary only occurs after the father's death, at
which stage the son inherits his father's property and becomes a coparcenary” The principle
of Dayabhaga is only practised in a few parts of India, such as West Bengal and Assam, and
there is no right granted to a son by birth in this school. When his father dies, his son has the
right to inherit the land. When a son dies, his male or female heirs will inherit his land. If
suppose the son dies leaving behind widows or daughter’s then they can succeed the property
and becomes coparcener. The key distinction between the two schools is that females will
become coparceners here. Each coparcener takes a particular share, resulting in a unity of
ownership.