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.
2 only
Understanding Ancient Indian Civil Law: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga
In the history of ancient and medieval India, two principal schools of Hindu law governed matters of inheritance and property rights, particularly within families: the Mitakshara system and the Dayabhaga system. These systems differed significantly in how they viewed the rights of family members to ancestral property.
Analyzing Statement 1: Caste-Based Application of Civil Law
The first statement claims that Mitakshara was the civil law for upper castes and Dayabhaga for lower castes.
- This statement is generally incorrect. The distinction between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga was primarily regional and based on different interpretations of ancient legal texts (like the Smritis, commentaries by Jimutavahana for Dayabhaga and Vijnaneshvara for Mitakshara).
- The Mitakshara system prevailed over most parts of India, while the Dayabhaga system was predominantly followed in Bengal and Assam.
- Their application was not determined by caste but rather by the school of law followed in a particular region or family lineage.
Therefore, statement 1 is inaccurate.
Analyzing Statement 2: Property Rights During and After Father's Lifetime
The second statement describes the timing of sons' claims to property in the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems.
- According to the Mitakshara system, sons acquire a right to ancestral property by birth. This means they become coparceners (co-owners) with their father in joint family property as soon as they are born. They can, therefore, claim their share even during the father's lifetime (though practical partition often occurred later or upon the father's death).
- In contrast, under the Dayabhaga system, the father is considered the absolute owner of the property during his lifetime. Sons do not acquire a right by birth. Their right to the property arises only upon the death of the father as heirs.
This fundamental difference regarding the timing of property rights is a key distinction between the two schools. Statement 2 accurately captures this difference.
Analyzing Statement 3: Scope of Property Covered
The third statement suggests that Mitakshara deals only with property held by male members, while Dayabhaga deals with property held by both male and female members.
- Both Mitakshara and Dayabhaga primarily dealt with the rules of inheritance and succession concerning property that passed down through the male line or was part of the joint family pool (which was typically controlled by males).
- Property held exclusively by women (known as Stridhan) had its own rules of succession, which were recognized under both legal systems, although the specific rules for Stridhan varied.
- The core difference between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga lay in the concept of coparcenary (joint ownership by birth in Mitakshara) versus individual ownership until inheritance (Dayabhaga), not in whether female-held property was included or excluded comprehensively by one system over the other.
Therefore, statement 3 misrepresents the primary distinction between the two systems regarding the scope of property covered.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis of the three statements:
- Statement 1 is incorrect as the distinction was regional, not caste-based.
- Statement 2 is correct, accurately detailing the difference in when sons acquire rights to property.
- Statement 3 is incorrect regarding the primary scope difference related to male vs. male/female property.
Only statement 2 is correct.
The correct option is the one that states only statement 2 is correct.
| Feature | Mitakshara System | Dayabhaga System |
|---|---|---|
| Prevalence | Most of India (excluding Bengal and Assam) | Bengal and Assam |
| Right to Property (Sons) | By birth (becomes coparcener) | Only after father's death (inherits) |
| Concept of Property Ownership | Joint family property, fluctuating share (coparcenary) | Individual ownership until inheritance |
| Partition during Father's Lifetime | Possible (sons can demand) | Not possible without father's consent |
Revision Table: Comparing Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Law
Understanding the core principles of these two schools is crucial for studying ancient Indian property law.
| Aspect | Mitakshara Law | Dayabhaga Law |
|---|---|---|
| Founder/Commentator | Vijnaneshvara | Jimutavahana |
| Inheritance Principle | Based on propinquity (nearness of blood) | Based on religious efficacy (power to confer spiritual benefit) |
| Coparcenary Property | Sons have birthright in ancestral property; forms a coparcenary with father. | No birthright for sons in father's property; father is absolute owner during life. |
| Share Definition | Share is not defined or fixed until partition; it fluctuates. | Share is defined upon inheritance. |
| Widow's Rights | Generally limited rights to maintenance from joint family property; limited right to inherit from husband if property is partitioned. | Can inherit husband's share in his separate property. |
Additional Information on Ancient Indian Property Systems
The study of Mitakshara and Dayabhaga provides insight into the complex legal framework of ancient and medieval India:
- Coparcenary: A unique concept in Mitakshara where multiple persons simultaneously own property together, typically members of a Hindu undivided family, by virtue of birth. The share of each coparcener is not fixed but depends on the number of coparceners.
- Inheritance vs. Succession: These systems dealt with both succession (transfer of rights during the owner's lifetime, like partition in Mitakshara) and inheritance (transfer of property after the owner's death, common to both but the primary mode in Dayabhaga).
- Stridhan: Property exclusively owned by a woman, acquired through various means like gifts from relatives before or after marriage. Rules for its disposal and inheritance were separate from coparcenary or general inherited property and were recognized by both schools.
- Impact of Modern Law: While these systems formed the basis of Hindu personal law for centuries, they have been significantly modified and codified by modern legislation in India, such as the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (and its amendments), which brought about significant changes, including equal rights for daughters in coparcenary property.
Important Questions from Philosophy
Who has advocated 'Practical Vedanta'?
One of the most influential philosophers of India, Shankara was born in ___________.
Lebensraum was coined by:
By what name is the recurring and cyclical aimless rebirth and a wandering process known according to Indian philosophy?
Who accepts only Perception ?
