Position of Minor's Agreement

 

Hindu law, one of the world’s oldest legal systems, is uniquely structured around two main schools: the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga. Both schools interpret Hindu texts differently, leading to significant variations in family law, particularly in areas such as inheritance and property rights. Understanding the distinctions between these schools is essential for grasping Hindu family law, as they impact rights within families and have shaped landmark legal reforms and case laws.

Mitakshara School

The Mitakshara School, derived from Vijnaneshwara's commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, is the older of the two schools and is prevalent across most of India, except in West Bengal and Assam, where the Dayabhaga School is followed. The Mitakshara system emphasizes a collective family ownership structure and is deeply rooted in traditional Hindu values regarding family and property.

Joint Family and Coparcenary: A key feature of the Mitakshara School is the concept of a "coparcenary," which includes only male members descended from a common ancestor up to four generations. This system inherently restricts property rights to male members within a joint Hindu family. The coparcenary structure is central to the Mitakshara School’s interpretation of property inheritance, where sons have a birthright to ancestral property and become coparceners immediately upon birth. This birthright principle emphasizes collective family ownership and responsibilities.

However, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, significantly impacted the Mitakshara School by granting daughters the same coparcenary rights as sons, ensuring gender equality in inheritance. This amendment was upheld in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020), where the Supreme Court confirmed that daughters have equal coparcenary rights by birth, irrespective of their father's death, thus reinforcing the importance of gender equity within the Mitakshara system.

Inheritance and Partition: In the Mitakshara School, inheritance in a joint family follows the principle of "survivorship," where, upon the death of a coparcener, his share in the ancestral property is divided among surviving male coparceners. This principle differs from the Dayabhaga School, which follows inheritance after the individual’s death. Moreover, partition in the Mitakshara School typically requires the consent of all male coparceners and divides property equally among coparceners who demand it.

The landmark case of Gurbux Singh v. Harminder Kaur (2010) highlights this aspect, where the Supreme Court recognized that coparcenary property division must be carried out per the principles of Mitakshara law, emphasizing the roles of survivorship and partition within family law.

Regional Divisions within Mitakshara: The Mitakshara School itself is divided into sub-schools, including the Banaras, Mithila, Maharashtra, and Dravida (or Madras) schools, which exhibit minor regional differences in interpreting Hindu law. These variations reflect local customs but share a common foundation in Mitakshara principles. For instance, the Dravida School, which is followed in southern India, has certain nuances in interpreting property distribution that differ slightly from the Banaras School in the north. However, these regional variations do not alter the core Mitakshara tenets significantly.

Dayabhaga School

The Dayabhaga School, attributed to the jurist Jimutavahana, arose in Bengal as a reaction to certain rigid aspects of Mitakshara law. It primarily addresses succession rights and property division differently, focusing on individual ownership rather than joint family ownership. Dayabhaga is the dominant school in West Bengal and Assam, and its principles are followed within these regions for issues of inheritance and family law.

• Individual Ownership and Inheritance Rights: One of the defining principles of the Dayabhaga School is its rejection of the coparcenary system, emphasizing instead the individual's absolute ownership of property. Under Dayabhaga, a son does not automatically acquire a right to ancestral property by birth, unlike under Mitakshara. Rather, property rights are determined upon the death of the property owner. This system allows an individual to retain complete control over their property until death, granting more flexibility in inheritance matters.

This concept of inheritance is highlighted in the Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha (2008) case, where the Supreme Court upheld Dayabhaga’s principle of inheritance, reiterating that property rights under Dayabhaga become effective after the owner’s death, ensuring a straightforward inheritance process.

• Distribution and Partition: Dayabhaga School permits individual distribution of property after death, where inheritance passes to the legal heirs based on the principles of succession rather than survivorship. This system eliminates the concept of birthright and allows the property owner greater control over distribution, often aligning with modern views of personal property rights.

The Dayabhaga approach is particularly evident in inheritance cases, where an individual’s property passes equally to heirs after the individual’s death, contrasting with the Mitakshara method, which divides property within the joint family based on coparcenary rights. In Sashibala Debi v. Jnanendra Mohan (1914), the court reinforced that, under Dayabhaga law, the property devolves to heirs only upon the individual’s death, highlighting the autonomy Dayabhaga offers property owners over inheritance.

Comparative Analysis of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga

The differences between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools primarily revolve around their interpretations of coparcenary, inheritance rights, and property control, which subsequently impact family law. While Mitakshara prioritizes a joint family structure with shared property rights among male coparceners, Dayabhaga emphasizes individual ownership and inheritance after death, allowing greater flexibility for property owners.

• Women’s Rights: Both schools historically restricted women's inheritance rights, favoring male family members in property succession. However, the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, equalized inheritance rights, especially impacting the Mitakshara School by allowing daughters to become coparceners by birth. The Dayabhaga School, which already emphasized individual ownership, was less impacted but still saw improvements in women’s inheritance rights. The Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) case underscores this change, where the Supreme Court clarified that the 2005 amendment applied retrospectively, promoting gender equality in Hindu family law.
• Flexibility and Control: Dayabhaga offers more flexibility as property remains under the control of the individual until death, allowing them to distribute it according to their wishes. Mitakshara’s coparcenary structure, however, restricts such control, where ancestral property is automatically passed down to male descendants, limiting individual autonomy. The Dayabhaga approach is more aligned with modern principles of individual rights, whereas Mitakshara reflects traditional family-centric values.
• Application in Succession and Partition: Mitakshara’s coparcenary rights and emphasis on survivorship often create complexities in inheritance, especially for properties shared among multiple generations within a joint family. In contrast, Dayabhaga’s focus on succession after death offers a simpler distribution process. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen (1986) case emphasized this distinction, noting how the principles of both schools impacted property division within a Hindu family context.

Conclusion

The Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools represent two distinct approaches within Hindu law, with each approach impacting family dynamics, inheritance rights, and property distribution in unique ways. While Mitakshara emphasizes the joint family system and collective ownership through coparcenary, Dayabhaga upholds individual ownership and succession after death. These schools have shaped not only the legal landscape of Hindu family law but also influenced societal perspectives on family structure, gender equality, and property rights.

The evolution of Hindu law, particularly through legislative reforms and judicial decisions, has gradually adapted these traditional schools to better reflect modern values. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, stands as a landmark reform, bridging gaps within these schools by promoting gender equality. By interpreting and adapting the principles of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, Indian courts and legislators ensure that Hindu family law remains a dynamic, living tradition, able to address the evolving needs of society while preserving its cultural heritage.