Hindu Law is the world’s oldest legal system. Originally, Hindu Law was developed to meet all of the people’s needs and to ensure their well-being. Shruti (God’s words), Smriti (text), traditions (traditional behaviours), commentaries, and digest are the assets of the Hindu Law concept.
Modern Hindu Law is divided into two categories: codified law and uncodified law. Each Hindu is governed by codified law. The notion of Hindu law schools is no longer codified law, although it still exists in uncodified Hindu law. Many students from all throughout India authored comments on the Vedas and Smritis, which created the notion for Hindu law schools.
The discrepancy of opinion among commentators and interpreters arose as the Smriti improved. Despite the fact that many codes had been created, there was no official function of regulating. In one area of India, an authority will be accepted, but in other parts of India, it will be completely rejected. People who had previously accepted one authority were unlikely to embrace different authorities now. As a result, many schools of thought arose.
The term “schools of thought” refers to differing viewpoints on a topic. Thus, the term “schools of thought on Hindu law” alludes to the different and conflicting viewpoints on Hindu law’s policies and ideas. They may no longer be codifiable, unlike legislation. They no longer have any legal standing. They do, however, have an impact on the legislators’ or politicians’ thoughts.
The comments and digestives of the smritis are Hindu legal schools. These schools have contributed to the development of Hindu law by broadening its scope.
India’s two main schools are as follows[1]:
1. Mitakshara
2. Dayabhaga
MITAKSHARA:-
Mitakshara is a continuous commentary on the Code of Yajnavalkya,187, and a real summary of Smriti jurisprudence, with a humble title that meaning “brief compendium.” It was composed in the late eleventh century by Vijananeshwara, an ascetic also known as Vijnana Yogin. We get the substance of Smriti law and its precepts and injunctions in Mitakshara, which is more of a digest than a simple commentary on a single Smriti.
The work’s main strength is its thorough coverage of nearly all important legal subjects, as well as its synthesis of several Smriti sources. Except in Bengal, where the Dayabhaga of Jimutavahana is given precedence, it has absolute power throughout the Republic of India. In Bengal, the Mitakshara is venerated rather than obeyed, but its authority isn’t questioned on the grounds that it doesn’t clash with the works of the time.
In Gujarat, the island of Bombay, and the North Konkan, the Mayukha, a trendier written material is permitted to compete with it and is regarded an overruling authority on certain topics; even within the Mithila, there are certain deflections from parental authority.
Vijananeshwara analyses and examines Yajnavalkya’s tests in great detail at times. He “explains the meaning of recondite sections, fills omissions, and reconciles inconsistencies by frequent reference to alternative old expounders of law,” according to the council. 188 He has the distinct advantage of being both pontifical and easily reading. Mitakshara is one of Hindu law’s most important schools. The Mitakshara’s jurisdiction is vast. However, due to the many customary norms observed in different regions of the country, different parts of the country practise law in different ways.
Mitakshara School’s Sub-Division[2]:-
The Mitakshara school is split into four minor schools, which differ in certain minor details, notably in relation to adoption and inheritance. All of these schools accept Mitakshara’s absolute authority, although they favour certain treatises and interpretations that govern certain Mitakshara passages. This explains the disparities between those schools.
They are: –
1. Banaras Hindu Law School;
2. Mithila Law School;
3. Maharashtra law school;
4. Dravida or madras law school.
1. Mithila Law School:-
This law school has jurisdiction over the districts of Tirhoot and North Bihar. In the north, law school ideals reign supreme. Vivadaratnakar, Vivadachintamani, and smritsara are the primary commentaries of this school. The Kalpataru by Lakshmidhara is a book that Mithila School adherents regularly quote.
2. Banaras Hindu Law School:-
This legal school, which is affiliated with Mitakshara Law School, serves Northern India, including Orissa. Some of the most important remarks on it are Viramitrodaya Nirnyasindhu vivada and Viramitrodaya Nirnyasindhu vivada. The Benares School is frequently said to as the most orthodox of the Hindu legal schools.
3. Dravida or madras law school:-
This legal school tends to cover the entirety of India’s southern region. Mitakshara law school is also where it exerts its power. Smriti Chandrika of Devanna Bhatta,233 who lived around the end of the eleventh century, has had a powerful effect in South India throughout her life. It is an explanation of the law of inheritance, and Colebrooke regarded it as a book of exceptional quality, comparable to, if not superior to, Parashara Madhaviya, another renowned expert in the South. Smriti Chandrika, Vaijayanti, and others are the school’s key officials.
4. Maharashtra law school:-
The Maharashtra law school has jurisdiction over all of Maharashtra’s geographical areas, including Gujarat Karana and areas where the Marathi language is spoken fluently. These schools’ primary authority are Vyavhara Mayukha, Virmitrodaya, and others.
Mitakshara Hindu Family[3]:-
A joint family, according to Mitakshara legal school, refers to solely the male member of a family and includes his son, grandson, and great-grandson. In the Joint Family, they have collective co-ownership/Coparcenary. As a result, a son through birth receives an interest in the joint family’s ancestral property. According to the Dayabhaga law school, the son does not inherit his father’s property by birth, but does so after he dies. The Hindu blended family is a common occurrence in Hindu culture.
Its origins may be traced back to the old patriarchal system, in which the patriarch, or head of the family, was the unquestioned ruler, putting down rules for his family members to follow, being obeyed by all members of his family, and having complete control over their lives and property.
At its core was the general welfare of the family or the advancement of the family as a unit, for which the family members’ particular interests might be sacrificed. As a result, under Hindu law, the joint family structure emerged first in historical sequence, followed by individual recognition of a person separate from the family. Property obtained by members of the family was typically considered as family property or joint property of the family, with family members having one or the other claim over it.
With the progressive development of society and the acknowledgment of family members as self-sufficient individuals, the notion of distinct property and inheritance regulations emerged. The Hindu culture still recognises the joint family and joint family property as unique entities with no such idea alive anywhere else in the world, despite the lashes of time, the legal and legislative onslaught, and the judicial and legislative onslaught.
Classical Concept of Hindu Joint Family Composition:-
All male relatives descended lineally from a common male ancestor, as well as their mothers, wives or widows, and unmarried daughters, make up a ‘Hindu Joint Family.’ When an unmarried daughter marries, she leaves her father’s joint family and becomes a member of her husband’s joint family as his wife. If a daughter becomes a widow or is abandoned by her husband and permanently returns to her father’s home, she rejoins her father’s joint family.
Her children, on the other hand, do not join her father’s joint family and remain members of their father’s joint family. A male descendant’s illegitimate offspring would be a member of his father’s joint family. A kid in the womb until it is born is not considered a member of the joint family for tax reasons, but Hindu law treats it as such for some purposes.
Coparcenary in Mitakshara:-
The fundamental goal of comprehending the Mitakshara coparcenary idea was spiritual in character. In the case of the father, a coparcener is someone who can bring him a funeral cake. The son, son of a son (grandson), and son of a son of a son (great-grand-son) had the capacity to grant spiritual salvation through the execution of burial rituals, and as a result, they were given a title to the father’s property by birth.
This religious component, which was more concerned with relationships and spiritual rewards than with property, was subsequently completely overshadowed by the legal aspect. Coparceny is seen only from the standpoint of property by the revenue authorities. It is now understood to determine the members’ rights and duties in the joint family property, often known as ancestral property or coparcenary property.
A person is the exclusive owner of his or her self-acquisitions, and no one else, including family members, has the legal authority to limit his or her rights over the distinct property, unless as provided by law. However, a person who owns an interest in ancestral or coparcenary property is not the only owner of it under Hindu law, and his son, son of his son (grandson), and son of his son (great-grandson) gain a title to the property by birth.
Regardless of their number, all such sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons will be coparceners, with him having joint ownership in this land. Coparcenary is currently associated with the ownership of this property.
Mitakshara Coparcenary Formation:-
A coparcenary can’t be formed by a single individual. At least two male members are required to make up the group. A senior male member is required to form a coparcenary, just as it is in a Hindu joint household. As previously stated, a coparcenary must have a minimum of two members to begin and persist. Furthermore, establishing a coparcenary requires a strong bond between father and son.
Coparcener’s women:-
Women are not allowed to be coparceners under Mitakshara’s coparcenary. Although a wife has a claim to maintenance from her husband’s property under Hindu law, she is not a coparcener with him. Because the widow of a deceased coparcener is not a coparcener, she cannot be recognised as the family’s Karta. As a result, any alienation she makes will only bind her own part of the property and not the family members.
Under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act of 1937, a widow succeeding to her late husband’s portion in the joint family is not a coparcener. Despite the fact that she is neither a manager or Karta, she might be taxed as the head of a joint family. Even if her children are devadasis, a mother is not a coparcener with her sons or daughter. A mother-in-law cannot be a coparcener with her daughter-in-law in the same way.
Conclusion[4]:-
The Mitakshara system might be classified as conservative. It gives strong security in tough times since members of the joint family can rely on one other. However, a member can become a parasite at any time.
Hindu Law is the world’s oldest legal system. Originally, Hindu Law was developed to meet all of the people’s needs and to ensure their well-being. Shruti (God’s words), Smriti (text), traditions (traditional behaviours), commentaries, and digest are the assets of the Hindu Law concept.
Modern Hindu Law is divided into two categories: codified law and uncodified law. Each Hindu is governed by codified law. The notion of Hindu law schools is no longer codified law, although it still exists in uncodified Hindu law. Many students from all throughout India authored comments on the Vedas and Smritis, which created the notion for Hindu law schools.
The discrepancy of opinion among commentators and interpreters arose as the Smriti improved. Despite the fact that many codes had been created, there was no official function of regulating. In one area of India, a government will be accepted, but in other parts of India, it would be completely rejected. People who had previously accepted one authority were unlikely to embrace different authorities now. As a result, many schools of thought arose.
The term “schools of thought” refers to differing viewpoints on a topic. Thus, the term “schools of thought on Hindu law” alludes to the different and conflicting viewpoints on Hindu law’s policies and ideas. They may no longer be codified, unlike legislation. They no longer have any legal standing. They do, however, have an impact on the legislators’ or politicians’ thoughts.
[1] http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-dayabhaga-and-mitakshara-in-hindu-law/
[2] https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/what-are-the-sub-schools-of-the-mitakshara/117391
[3] https://www.glocaluniversity.edu.in/files/eContent/eLaw/HUF.pdf
[4] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5926-mitakshara-school-of-law.html
For more Blogs – CLICK HERE.
Lawyers Gyan is now on Telegram (t.me/LAWYERSGYAN). Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter or join our WhatsApp group.
Disclaimer:
Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your own checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.