What are the points of distinction between the Mi­takshara and the Dayabhaga Law of Partition?

According to the Mitakshara Law no member of a can predicate of the joint property that he has a definite share, so partition according to Mitakshara law is com­plete in ascertaining and defining the shares of the coparceners.

Image Source: i.ytimg.com

According to the Dayabhaga law, each coparcener has a cer­tain defined share in the joint family property even when the family is joint and undivided though the possession is common. So, partition according to this law consists in separating the shares of the coparceners, and assigning to the coparceners, specific portions of the property.

According to both the schools of Hindu Law, the true test of partition lies in the intention to separate.

Manifestation of the intention in the case of the Mitakshara law is complete only in agreement to hold the property in defined shares, but in the case of the Dayabhaga Law, there must be a separation of-shares and the assignment to each coparcener of specific portions of the joint property.

Under the Mitakshara law a son, a grandson and a great grand­son can demand partition against his three immediate ancestors, but according to the Dayabhaga law, son, grandson and great grandson have no such right because the father holds the property absolutely. During his lifetime his male issues have no interest in the property.

The purchaser of a fractional share in a property of the joint family may sue for partition according to both the schools of law.

Under the Mitakshara law the wife herself cannot demand partition, but she is entitled to a share when there is a partition between the husband and her sons. Under the Dayabhaga law such question does not arise because the father is the absolute owner, so the sons cannot demand partition.

A mother in both the schools cannot demand partition herself, but on partition among her sons she is entitled to a share equal to that of a son after deducting her stridhan which she has received from her husband or father-in-law. Where a son dies before parti­tion leaving the mother as his heir the mother is entitled to a share of his deceased son as well as share in her own right when there is a partition afterwards between the remaining sons.

Under the Mitakshara law a step-mother is entitled to a share on partition but under Dayabhaga law a sonless step-mother is not entitled to a share on partition.

According to both schools of Hindu Law a grandmother can­not herself demand a partition.

According to Mitakshara law when partition takes place be­tween her grandson (son being dead she is entitled to a share of a grandson. When partition takes place between her sons and son of her deceased son she is entitled to a share of a grandson.

According to the Dayabhaga law when partition takes place between her sons and grandsons or between the son and the daugh­ter of a predeceased son she takes a share of a son.

If a partition is between her grandsons she takes a share of a grandson.

If a partition takes place between her grandson and great-grand­sons, she takes the share of a grandson.

In each case if she has received a stridhan from her husband or father-in-law the stridhan amount will be adjusted in her share.

In both the schools of law brothers take equal shares on partition.

In both the schools each branch takes per stripes as regards every other branch but the members of branch take per capita as regards each other.