Q. With reference to the two main Schools of Hindu Law (Mitakshara and Dayabhaga) that governed property rights during the Early Medieval period, the fundamental difference lies in the concept of Coparcenary. This is best summarized as:

[A] Mitakshara recognized daughter's right to property by birth, while Dayabhaga denied this right.

[B] Mitakshara applies the rule of Survivorship, where a son acquires an interest in the Ancestral property by birth, whereas Dayabhaga requires partition upon the father's death.

[C] Dayabhaga permitted the alienation (sale/gift) of joint property by the coparcener during the father's lifetime, which Mitakshara strictly prohibited.

[D] Mitakshara allowed for the partition of property only when the widow consented, while Dayabhaga allowed it unilaterally.

Answer: B
Notes:

Explanation:

  • (b) Correct. The core difference: Mitakshara (prevalent in most of India) grants the son a right in the Ancestral Property by birth (Rule of Survivorship). Dayabhaga (prevalent in Bengal and Assam) holds that the son acquires interest only after the father’s death, until which the father remains the sole owner.
  • (a) Incorrect. Both schools originally denied the daughter a birthright in coparcenary property.
  • (c) Incorrect. Mitakshara restricts alienation of property without the consent of all coparceners. Dayabhaga allows the son to dispose of his share even while the father is alive, as the property is deemed separate until partition.
Blog
Academy
Community