Introduction
Hindu Law, unlike many contemporary legal systems, is not monolithic. Its ancient origins and vast geographical spread led to diverse interpretations and regional variations, giving rise to distinct "Schools of Hindu Law." These schools are essentially different commentaries and interpretations of the Smritis, particularly the Yajnavalkya Smriti, which have, over centuries, evolved into separate systems governing Hindus in different parts of India. For law students and aspirants, comprehending these schools is not just an academic exercise; it's crucial for understanding the historical development, regional nuances, and practical application of Hindu legal principles, especially in matters of inheritance, succession, and family property.
The two principal schools of Hindu Law are the Mitakshara School and the Dayabhaga School. While both derive their authority from the same foundational Smriti texts, their interpretations, particularly regarding property rights and inheritance, diverge significantly, leading to distinct legal outcomes.
The Mitakshara School: The Pillar of Survivorship
The Mitakshara School, named after the commentary written by Vijnaneshwara on the Yajnavalkya Smriti in the 11th century, is the dominant school of Hindu Law prevalent throughout India, with the exception of Bengal and Assam. Its core tenet revolves around the concept of coparcenary property and right by birth.
Key Principles of Mitakshara:
1. Coparcenary and Right by Birth: This is the most defining feature of the Mitakshara school. A coparcenary is a much narrower body than a joint Hindu family, consisting only of male lineal descendants up to four generations from the last holder of the property.
Under Mitakshara, a son, grandson, and great-grandson acquire an interest in the ancestral property by birth. This means that at the moment of his birth, a male child automatically becomes a coparcener and acquires an undivided interest in the ancestral property. This right is independent of the father's consent and cannot be defeated by his will.Illustrative Example: If 'A' has ancestral property, his son 'B' acquires a share in it at birth. If 'B' then has a son 'C', 'C' also acquires a share by birth in the same property. The property is held jointly by all coparceners.
2. Survivorship: Upon the death of a coparcener, his undivided interest in the coparcenary property does not pass by succession to his heirs (e.g., his widow or daughters) but devolves by survivorship to the remaining coparceners. This means that the share of the deceased coparcener simply expands the shares of the surviving coparceners. This principle was a major point of contention and led to significant reform.
3. Fluctuating Interest: The share of a coparcener in the joint family property is not fixed but fluctuates with births and deaths in the coparcenary. For instance, if a new male child is born, the shares of existing coparceners diminish, and if a coparcener dies without male lineal heirs, their shares increase.
4. Karta's Powers: The Karta (manager) of a Mitakshara joint family has extensive powers to manage the family property, including alienation for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. However, these powers are not absolute and can be challenged by other coparceners if misused.
5. Separate Property: Property acquired by a Hindu through his own exertions, without the aid of joint family funds or property, is considered his separate or self-acquired property. He has absolute power to dispose of this property as he wishes.
Sub-Schools of Mitakshara: Regional Variations
While sharing the fundamental principles, the Mitakshara School itself has evolved into four sub-schools, primarily differing in their interpretations of the law of adoption and certain aspects of inheritance, particularly regarding the order of heirs and the validity of adoption by a widow:
1. Benaras School: This school prevails in North India (excluding Punjab) and parts of Central India. It is considered the most orthodox and conservative of the Mitakshara sub-schools. It places emphasis on spiritual benefit in adoption and succession.
2. Mithila School: Prevalent in parts of Bihar and Orissa, this school is distinguished by its more restrictive views on a woman's capacity to adopt and inherit property. For instance, it does not recognize the right of a mother to succeed to her son's separate property if she is barren or a stepmother.
3. Maharashtra (Bombay) School: This school covers Western India and is considered more liberal than the Benares and Mithila schools. It permits a widow to adopt a son to her deceased husband without his express consent, if she has the consent of her husband's sapindas (agnate relations). It also introduces the concept of 'stridhan' (women's property) with a broader scope.
4. Dravida (Madras) School: Operating in Southern India, this school is known for its peculiar doctrine of 'virility' in inheritance and its interpretation of the mother's right to succeed to her son's property. It also has specific rules regarding 'putrika putra' (appointed daughter's son).
Case Law Context on Mitakshara Principles:
● Vengala v. Vengala (1975 SC): This case reiterated the fundamental principle of coparcenary property under Mitakshara, affirming that property inherited by a Hindu male from his father, father's father, or father's father's father is ancestral property, in which his son acquires a right by birth.
● Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan (1935 PC): This Privy Council case clarified that a joint Hindu family, as a legal entity, continues to exist even if it consists of a sole surviving coparcener, provided it has the potential for expansion (e.g., through adoption or future births). This emphasizes the conceptual longevity of the joint family.
● M.N. Aryamurthi v. M.D. Subbaraya Setty (1972 SC): The Supreme Court elaborated on the Karta's power to alienate joint family property for legal necessity or benefit of the estate, emphasizing that such alienation must be for a clear and demonstrable reason that benefits the family as a whole.
The Dayabhaga School: The Focus on Succession
The Dayabhaga School, derived from Jimutavahana's commentary, "Dayabhaga," written in the 12th century, prevails exclusively in Bengal and Assam. It stands in stark contrast to the Mitakshara school, particularly in its approach to property rights and inheritance. The fundamental difference lies in the concept of 'right by birth' and the devolution of property upon death.
Key Principles of Dayabhaga:
1. No Right by Birth in Ancestral Property: Unlike Mitakshara, the Dayabhaga school does not recognize the concept of right by birth in ancestral property. A son does not acquire any interest in the ancestral property during his father's lifetime. The father is the absolute owner of both ancestral and self-acquired property during his lifetime, with full power to alienate or dispose of it as he wishes. The son's right arises only upon the father's death.Illustrative Example: If 'A' has ancestral property, his son 'B' has no interest in it as long as 'A' is alive. 'A' can sell, gift, or will away the entire property. 'B' only gets a share if 'A' dies intestate, and only then by inheritance.
2. Inheritance by Succession (Religious Efficacy): Upon the death of a coparcener (e.g., the father), his share in the property does not pass by survivorship but by succession to his heirs. The primary criterion for inheritance under Dayabhaga is religious efficacy, i.e., the capacity of the heir to offer spiritual benefits (Pindadan or funeral oblations) to the deceased. This principle leads to different lists of heirs compared to Mitakshara.
3. Fixed Interest: Since there is no right by birth, the concept of fluctuating interest does not apply. Each coparcener (after the father's death) holds a definite, ascertained share in the property, which can be alienated even before partition.
4. Absolute Ownership of Individual Shares: While the property may be jointly managed, each coparcener under Dayabhaga holds a definite and separate share in the joint property, which descends to his heirs upon his death. This implies a clear, individualistic approach to property ownership.
5. Karta's Powers: The Karta in a Dayabhaga joint family also manages the property, but his powers are less extensive than in Mitakshara because individual coparceners have definite shares and greater powers of alienation over their respective shares.
Case Law Context on Dayabhaga Principles:
● Jogendra Nath Rai v. Baladeb Das (1908 Calcutta High Court): This case affirmed the Dayabhaga principle that a son does not acquire a right by birth in his father's property and that the father has absolute power over it during his lifetime.
● Amrita Lal Sen v. Jagnath Dutt (1930 Calcutta High Court): This case highlighted the importance of 'religious efficacy' as the guiding principle for inheritance under Dayabhaga, explaining how the capacity to offer Pindadan determined the order of heirs.
● Suraj Bansi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh (1878 PC): While often cited for Mitakshara, this Privy Council case also implicitly contrasted the Dayabhaga system by emphasizing the distinct nature of coparcenary rights that exist in Mitakshara but are absent in Dayabhaga until partition.
Impact of Codification: Modernizing Hindu Law
The enactment of the Hindu Code Bills in the mid-20th century significantly impacted the application of these traditional schools. Acts like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, aimed to codify, simplify, and, crucially, reform Hindu Law.
Key Changes Due to Codification:
1. Abolition of Survivorship (Mostly): The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, fundamentally altered the Mitakshara system by converting the rule of survivorship into one of succession for the interest of a deceased coparcener in certain circumstances. Section 6 of the Act, especially after the 2005 amendment, provides that if a male Hindu dies intestate, his interest in a Mitakshara coparcenary property shall devolve by testamentary or intestate succession, and not by survivorship, if he leaves behind a female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule (e.g., daughter, widow, mother) or a male relative specified in Class I through such a female relative.
2. Equal Rights for Daughters: The most revolutionary change came with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which granted daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth in ancestral property, on par with sons. This effectively abolished the discriminatory aspect of male-only coparcenary, a core tenet of the traditional Mitakshara school.Case Law Context: The Supreme Court's pronouncements in Prakash v. Phulavati (2015) and definitively in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) clarified the retrospective application of the 2005 amendment. In Vineeta Sharma, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that a daughter is a coparcener by birth, and her right accrues from her birth, irrespective of whether her father was alive on the date of the 2005 amendment. This judgment effectively cemented the daughter's position as an equal coparcener, significantly modifying the traditional Mitakshara concept of coparcenary.
3. Monogamy and Divorce: The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, introduced monogamy, making bigamy illegal, and provided for judicial remedies for divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, and judicial separation, which were largely absent or governed by custom in traditional Hindu Law.
4. Uniformity and Modernity: Codification aimed to introduce uniformity across different regions and to align Hindu Law with modern principles of equality, justice, and human rights, moving away from some archaic practices.
Conclusion: A Legacy of Adaptation and Reform
The Schools of Hindu Law, particularly the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, represent a fascinating chapter in legal history, showcasing how distinct interpretations of foundational texts can lead to divergent legal systems. While the ancient differences were profound, especially concerning property rights, the legislative reforms, particularly the Hindu Code Bills and their subsequent amendments, have significantly bridged many of these gaps.
Today, while the theoretical distinctions between the schools remain important for historical understanding and for interpreting pre-codification disputes, the practical application of Hindu Law is primarily governed by the codified statutes. The spirit of reform, driven by principles of gender equality and social justice, has largely superseded the more rigid traditional interpretations.
For law students and aspirants, a thorough understanding of these schools provides a robust foundation in Hindu Jurisprudence. It not only illuminates the historical evolution of law but also underscores the dynamic nature of legal systems, capable of adapting to societal changes while retaining a connection to their ancient roots. The journey from the Smritis and their commentaries to comprehensive modern statutes, guided by judicial interpretations and a commitment to justice, is a testament to the enduring and evolving legacy of Hindu Law. Embracing this complexity is key to mastering this rich and vital area of Indian law.
Want to know more :
Sources Of Hindu law: Ancient and Modern
Concept Of Marriage in hindu law
