UPSC Prelims 2021 Q40: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Schools — Explained
With reference to the history of ancient India, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1. Mitakshara was the civil law for upper castes and Dayabhaga was the civil law for lower castes.
2. In the Mitakshara system, the sons can claim right to the property during the lifetime of the father, whereas in the Dayabhaga system, it is only after the death of the father that the sons can claim right to the property.
3. The Mitakshara system deals with the matters related to the property held by male members only of a family, whereas the Dayabhaga system deals with the matters related to the property held by both male and female members of a family.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- 1 and 2
- 2 only
- 1 and 3
- 3 only
Answer: (b) 2 only
Statement-wise explanation
- 1: incorrect — Mitakshara and Dayabhaga were schools of Hindu inheritance law divided by region, not by caste. Dayabhaga, written by Jimutavahana, was followed in Bengal. Mitakshara, Vijnaneshvara's 11th-century commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti, was followed in most of the rest of India. In each region the same school applied to Hindus of every caste.
- 2: correct — Mitakshara rests on the principle of 'right by birth' (janmaswatvavada). A son gets an interest in coparcenary property the moment he is born, so he can claim it and even ask for partition while his father is alive. Dayabhaga gives no right by birth. The father fully owns the property during his lifetime, and sons get their shares only when he dies.
- 3: incorrect — Neither school is limited to property held by men. Mitakshara also deals with property held by women, such as stridhana. Its rule that only male descendants (son, grandson, great-grandson) were coparceners of ancestral property limits who shares in that property. It does not limit the law to men's property. Dayabhaga was more generous to women (a widow could inherit), but that is a difference in degree, not the clean male-only versus male-and-female split the statement claims.
How to eliminate
Statement 1 can be ruled out from basic knowledge. Classical Hindu law schools were divided by region (Bengal versus the rest of India), never by caste. That rules out the options with 1 and 2 and with 1 and 3. You are left choosing between '2 only' and '3 only'. Statement 3 makes a sharp claim: one system deals with property held by 'male members only'. Sharp, exclusive claims like this are usually false. Anyone who knows stridhana, a woman's own property under Hindu law, will see that Mitakshara also deals with women's property. Statement 2 is the one fact to remember: under Mitakshara, sons get a right by birth; under Dayabhaga, they get a right only when the father dies. With that fact, the question is solved.
Know more
Two schools of classical Hindu inheritance law
The smritis (law books) were applied through commentaries. Two commentaries grew into the main 'schools' of Hindu family property law:
| Feature | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
| Author / text | Vijnaneshvara, 11th century; commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti | Jimutavahana; Bengal, c. 12th century |
| Region | Most of India | Bengal |
| Basis of a son's right | By birth (janmaswatvavada) | Only on the father's death |
| Father's position | One coparcener among his sons | Full owner during his lifetime |
| Coparcenary | Joint ownership by male descendants up to three generations (son, grandson, great-grandson) | Each member has a defined share, with no shared ownership |
| Passing of property | Survivorship (a deceased member's interest passes to the surviving coparceners) | Succession (shares pass to heirs) |
| Widow | Weaker position | Could inherit her husband's share |
From custom to statute
- The Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 gave widows a limited interest ('Hindu woman's estate') in their husband's property.
- The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, part of the Hindu Code Bills, wrote succession law into one Act but kept the Mitakshara coparcenary for males.
- The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force on 9 September 2005. It followed the Law Commission's 174th Report (2000). Under the amended Section 6, a coparcener's daughter becomes a coparcener by birth, with the same rights and liabilities as a son.
- In Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (11 August 2020), the Supreme Court held that because the right comes by birth, a daughter is a coparcener even if her father died before 9 September 2005.
Exam angle: UPSC tests whether you can tell a regional difference from a caste difference, and 'right by birth' from 'right on death'.
In the news
In August 2020, the Supreme Court's three-judge ruling in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Mitakshara joint family property, even if the father died before the 2005 amendment. That ruling put the Mitakshara coparcenary back in the news in the year before the 2021 Prelims.
NCERT Concepts to Revise
- Mitakshara and Dayabhaga: The core entry: the two schools the three statements compare, on property rights, region and who is covered.
- Yajnavalkya Smriti: Mitakshara is a commentary on this Dharmashastra, which helps place the school in time and tradition.
- Stridhana: Women's own property under Hindu law; you need it to judge the claim about whose property each system covers.
- Hindu Code Bill: The codification that turned these classical schools into the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
- Personal laws: Explains that these schools belong to Hindu personal law, so you can test the caste-based framing in statement 1.
- Gendered access to property: Background on unequal property rights for men and women, which statements 2 and 3 indirectly test.