Difference between Dayabhaga and Mitakshara in Hindu Law
The term “Dayabhaga” is derived from a similarly named text written by Jimutavahana. The
term-, “Mitakshara” is derived from the name of a commentary written by Vijnaneswara, on
the Yajnavalkya Smriti. The Dayabhaga and The Mitakshara are the two schools of lawthat
govern the law of succession of the Hindu Undivided Family under Indian Law. The
Dayabhaga School of law is observed in Bengal and Assam. In all other parts of India, the
Mitakshara School of law is observed. The Mitakshara School of law is subdivided into the
Benares, the Mithila, the Maharashtra and the Dravida schools.
The differences between the Dayabhaga and the Mitakshara schools of law may be
categorized under the following: -
1. Joint Family: – According to the Mitakshara law school a joint family refers only to
the male member of a family and extends to include his son, grandson and greatgrandson.
They collectively have co-ownership/Coparcenary in the Joint Family.Thus a son by birth
acquires an interest in the ancestral property of the joint family. Under the Dayabhaga law
school the son has no automatic ownership right by birth but acquires it on the demise of his
In the Mitakshara school the father’s power over the property is qualified by the equal rights
by birth enjoyed by a son, a grandson and a great grand -son. An adult son can demand
partition during his father’s lifetime or his three immediate ancestors. He has a say in the
disposition of the family property and can oppose any unauthorized disposition of ancestral
or family property. This is not possible under the Dayabhaga school as the father has overall
and uncontrolled power over the family property till death.
2. Coparcenary/Co-ownership: -Under the Mitakshara law school all the members of
the Joint family enjoy coparcenary rights during the father’s lifetime. Under Dayabhaga
School when the father is alive the sons do not have coparcenary rights but acquire it on the
death of the father. In the Mitakshara School the coparcener’s share is not defined and cannot
be disposed. In the Dayabhaga the share of each Coparcener is defined and can be disposed.
3. Partition: – While both the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga schools hold that the true
test of partition is in the intention to separate the manifestation of this intention is different in
each of the schools. In the case of the Mitakshara School the intention involves holding the
property in defined definite shares while in the Dayabhaga School there has to be a physical
separation of the property into specific portions and assigning of separate share to each
coparcener. In the Mitakshara system none of the members of the coparceners can claim a
definite physical share of the joint property. So, partition in this system involves in
ascertaining and defining the share of the coparcener i.e. In the numerical division of the
property. In the Dayabhaga system each of the coparcener has a definite share in the joint
family property even though the family is joint and undivided and the possession is common.
So, partition in this system involves the physical separation of the joint property into the
separate shares of the coparceners and assigning to each of the coparceners the specific
portion of the property.
4. Rights of Woman: – In the Mitakshara system the wife cannot demand partition. She
however has the right to a share in any partition affected between her husband and her sons.
Under the Dayabhaga this right does not exist for the women because the sons cannot
demand partition as the father is the absolute owner. In both the systems, in any partition
among the sons, the mother is entitled to a share equal to that of a son. Similarly, when a son
dies before partition leaving the mother as his heir, the mother is entitled to a share of her
deceased son as well as share in her own right when there is a partition between the