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.
Contents12
- A1 and 2
- B2 only
- C1 and 3
- D3 only
Show answer
Answer: (B) 2 only
Statement 1 is wrong:
Both Mitakshara and Dayabhaga were systems of Hindu family law for upper castes.
The difference was regional — Dayabhaga prevailed in eastern India (Bengal), while Mitakshara applied in the rest of India.
Statement 2 is correct:
Under Dayabhaga, sons could claim property rights only after the father's death.
Under Mitakshara, sons had a right to property by birth and could demand partition even during the father's lifetime.
Statement 3 is wrong:
Both systems dealt with women's property rights.
Mitakshara was more restrictive — women could not become coparceners, and widows could not claim their husband's share.
Dayabhaga was more liberal — widows could inherit their husband's share and enforce partition.
Only
Statement 2 is correct.
Answer: (b).
Mitakshara and Dayabhaga are the two main schools of Hindu inheritance law that British courts applied during colonial rule and continue to influence modern Hindu succession laws.
The key difference is timing of inheritance rights: Mitakshara sons get property rights by birth during father's lifetime, while Dayabhaga sons inherit only after father's death.
UPSC is testing whether students can distinguish between regional application versus caste-based application, and understand the specific inheritance mechanics of each system.
Mitakshara System
Ancient And Medieval History Mitakshara
Mitakshara System: Joint Family Property Rights & Regional Application
Mitakshara system applied in most of India except Bengal
Sons get property rights by birth and can demand partition during father's lifetime
Women cannot become coparceners under this system
Based on Yajnavalkya Smriti with commentary by Vijnanesvara
The Mitakshara system was the dominant Hindu family law across India (except Bengal). It emphasized joint family ownership where sons acquired rights by birth, not inheritance.
Key Features
Sons become coparceners by birth with equal rights to ancestral property
Father cannot dispose of ancestral property without sons' consent
Sons can demand partition during father's lifetime
Emphasizes joint family and collective ownership
Women have limited inheritance rights - cannot be coparceners
Geographic Application
Applied across most of India - from Punjab to South India
Bengal and Assam followed Dayabhaga system instead
Regional variations existed within the Mitakshara school
Trap: Mitakshara was not law for upper castes only - it was regional (most of India vs Bengal)
Trap: Both systems dealt with women's property - Mitakshara was more restrictive for women
Trap: Under Mitakshara, sons get rights by birth, not after father's death
Dayabhaga System
Ancient And Medieval History Dayabhaga
Dayabhaga System: Individual Inheritance Rights in Eastern India
Dayabhaga system prevailed in Bengal and Assam
Sons get property rights only after father's death
More liberal towards women - widows can inherit husband's share
Based on Jimutavahana's commentary on Yajnavalkya Smriti
The Dayabhaga system dominated eastern India (Bengal, Assam). Unlike Mitakshara, it emphasized individual ownership and inheritance after death rather than birth rights.
Key Features
Sons acquire property rights only after father's death
Father has absolute control over property during his lifetime
No coparcenary by birth - inheritance through succession
Emphasizes individual ownership over joint family
More liberal approach to women's inheritance rights
Women's Rights
Widows can inherit their deceased husband's share
Widows can enforce partition of joint family property
More progressive than Mitakshara in recognizing women's property rights
Geographic Application
Primarily Bengal and Assam regions
Some parts of Orissa also followed this system
Rest of India followed Mitakshara system
Mitakshara vs Dayabhaga Comparison
Ancient And Medieval History Mitakshara Dayabhaga
Mitakshara vs Dayabhaga: Key Differences in Hindu Family Law
Both were regional systems, not caste-based laws
Main difference: when sons get property rights (birth vs death)
Dayabhaga was more liberal for women's inheritance
System Comparison
Aspect | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
Geographic Area | Most of India | Bengal & Assam |
Sons' Rights | By birth (coparcenary) | After father's death only |
Father's Control | Limited over ancestral property | Absolute during lifetime |
Partition Rights | Sons can demand during father's lifetime | Only after father's death |
Women's Rights | Restrictive - no coparcenary | Liberal - widows can inherit |
Property Concept | Joint family ownership | Individual ownership |
Textual Basis | Vijnanesvara's commentary | Jimutavahana's commentary |
The question directly tests the timing of inheritance rights - the core distinguishing feature between these systems. Statement 2 correctly identifies this key difference.
Trap: Both systems applied to upper castes - difference was regional, not caste-based
Trap: Both systems dealt with women's property, but Dayabhaga was more liberal
Trap: Mitakshara = rights by birth; Dayabhaga = rights after death (not the reverse)
Hindu Family Law Evolution
Ancient And Medieval History
Evolution of Hindu Family Law: From Dharmashastra to Regional Systems
Hindu family law evolved from Dharmashastra texts like Manusmriti
Regional commentaries led to different legal schools
British codified these systems during colonial period
Hindu family law developed from ancient Dharmashastra texts, with regional scholars creating different interpretative schools that governed property, inheritance, and family relations.
Historical Development
%%{init: {"flowchart": {"wrappingWidth": 460}}}%%
flowchart TD
s1["`**Ancient Dharmashastra**
**Manusmriti, Yajnavalkya Smriti** - foundational texts`"]
s2["`**Medieval Commentaries**
Regional scholars interpret texts - **Vijnanesvara, Jimutavahana**`"]
s3["`**Regional Schools**
**Mitakshara** (most India) vs **Dayabhaga** (Bengal) emerge`"]
s4["`**British Codification**
Colonial courts recognize and codify these systems`"]
s5["`**Modern Hindu Code**
**Hindu Succession Act 1956** - uniform law replaces both systems`"]
s1 --> s2
s2 --> s3
s3 --> s4
s4 --> s5Other Legal Schools
Mayukha school - prevalent in Maharashtra and parts of Karnataka
Marumakkathayam - matrilineal system in Kerala
Aliyasantana - joint family system in coastal Karnataka
Various sub-schools within Mitakshara across different regions