UpdateBot at 18:14, 8 January 2022

2022-01-08T18:14:58Z

New page

{{italics title}}
The '''''Dāyabhāga''''' is a [[Hindu law]] treatise written by [[Jīmūtavāhana]] which primarily focuses on inheritance procedure. The ''Dāyabhāga'' was the strongest authority in Modern British Indian courts in the [[Bengal]] region of India, although this has changed due to the passage of the [[Hindu Succession Act, 1956|Hindu Succession Act]] of 1956 and subsequent revisions to the act.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 703.</ref> Based on Jīmūtavāhana's criticisms of the ''[[Mitākṣarā]]'', it is thought that his work is precluded by the ''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}''. This has led many scholars to conclude that the ''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}'' represents the orthodox doctrine of Hindu law, while the ''Dāyabhāga'' represents the reformed version.<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 23.</ref>

The central difference between the texts is based upon when one becomes the owner of property. The ''Dāyabhāga'' does not give the sons a right to their father's ancestral property until after his death, unlike ''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}'', which gives the sons the right to ancestral property upon their birth. The digest has been commented on more than a dozen times.<ref name="Kane P. V">Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 704.</ref>

==Translation==

===Henry Thomas Colebrooke===
[[Henry Thomas Colebrooke]] translated the ''Dāyabhāga'' in 1810 through the use of manuscripts and [[pandit]]s. Colebrooke, a Calcutta Supreme Court judge, broke the text into chapters and verses which were not in the original text and is often criticized for numerous errors in translation.<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 33.</ref> Rocher believes the mistakes were due to three factors:<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 35.</ref>
# The format of the [[Sanskrit]] texts
# The texts were deeply involved with an ancient civilization, which the translators were not familiar with
# The misconception that the text was written by lawyers, for lawyers

Colebrooke created the division of two schools of thought in India, separating the majority of [[India]], thought to follow the ''Mitākṣarā'' and the Bengal region, which followed the ''Dāyabhāga'' system.

==Topics covered in the digest==
* Partition of the father and grandfather's property
* Inheritance procedure among brothers after the death of the father
* Those excluded from inheritance due to disabilities
* The order of succession of one who dies without a son

==Sages mentioned in the ''Dāyabhāga''==
* [[Shraddhadeva Manu|Manu]]: Among Smrtis, Manu is quoted the most frequently by Jīmūtavāhana.<ref name="Kane P. V"/>
* [[Yajnavalkya]]
* Visnu
* [[Narada]]
* [[Bṛhaspati#Sage Brihaspati|Bṛhaspati]]
* [[Katyayana]]
* [[Vyasa]]

==Central differences between the ''Dāyabhāga'' and the ''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}''==

===Son's inheritance===
* The son has no right to the father's ancestral property until after his death, or the father's ownership becomes extinct through other means, such as being excluded from the caste or becoming ascetic. This is in direct contrast to the ''{{IAST|[[Mitākṣarā]]}}'', which gives the sons a claim upon birth.<ref name="Kane P. V"/>

===The rights of the widow===
* The widow succeeds the husband's property rights on his death, not in their own right, but representing him, even in cases where husband held property jointly with his brother.<ref name="Robert Lingat 1973">Robert Lingat, The Classical Law of India, (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 172.</ref>

===Ancestral property===
*''Dāyabhāga'' states that the father is the sole ruler of all property, both ancestral and personal. Unlike the ''Mitākṣarā'', ancestral property is not seen as communal, therefore the father does not require the consent of his sons to act over the ancestral property. The essential difference between the 'Dāyabhāga' and the ''{{IAST|Mitākṣarā}}'' family is that the 'Dāyabhāga' sees no difference between the father's total control over ancestral and personal property.<ref name="Robert Lingat 1973"/>

===Personal property===
*The father has the right to do as he wishes with his personal property in both the ''Mitākṣarā'' and the ''Dāyabhāga''.

==Inheritance==

===Succession===
*After the father's death, the sons will succeed his portion of the ancestral property. This can be done during the father's lifetime, but only if the father chooses to do so. The property is not communally owned by the family, as it is in the ''Mitākṣarā''. Each son has the ability to do what he wishes with his portion of the property after his father's death.<ref>Robert Lingat, The Classical Law of India, (New York: Oxford UP, 1973), 173.</ref>

==Dharmaratna==
*The ''Dāyabhāga'' is one of three recovered parts of Jīmūtavāhana's digest, the ''Dharmaratna''. Only the ''Dāyabhāga'' has been commented on.

The other surviving parts include:

===''Vyavahāra-Mātrkā''===
Focuses on the Vyavahāra, or judicial procedure. Covers the four traditional areas of jurisprudence:<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 9.</ref>
* Plaint
* Reply
* Evidence
* Decision

===''Kāla-Viveka''===
Focuses on the appropriate times for the performance of religious duties and sacrifices.<ref name="Kane P. V"/>

==Commentaries==
More than a dozen commentaries have been written on the ''Dāyabhāga''. [[Pandurang Vaman Kane]] lists the most important commentators as:<ref>Kāne, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 711.</ref>

===Śrīnātha Ācāryacūda===
* ''{{IAST|Dāyabhāga-ṭippaṇī}}''
* (1470-1540)
* The oldest commentary on the ''Dāyabhāga''.
* Ācāryacūda was the teacher of jurist [[Raghunandana]].

===Rāmabhadra Nyāylankāra===
* ''{{IAST|Dāyabhāga-vivṛti}}''
* (1510-1570)
* Son of Śrīnātha Ācāryacūda, often defended his father against the criticism of Cakraviartin in his commentaries.

===Acyutānanda Cakraviartin===
* ''Dāyabhāga-siddhāntakumudacandrikā''
* (1510-1570)
* Often critical of Ācāryacūda's commentary through the use of extensive quotations.

==={{IAST|Maheśvara Bhaṭṭācārya}}===
* ''{{IAST|Dāyabhāga-ṭīkā}}''
* (1530-1600)

==={{IAST|Śrīksṛṣṇa}}===
* ''Dāyabhāga-probidhinī''
*(Mid 18th century)
* Considered to be the most popular of all ''Dāyabhāga'' commentators, with most editions of the ''Dāyabhāga'' containing his commentary.<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 17.</ref>

===Raghunandana===
[[Raghunandana]] (c. 16th century) was the author of the ''[[Dāya-Tattva]]''. ''Dayabhaga tika'' (or ''Dayabhaga vyakhya''), a commentary on Dayabhaga, is also attributed to him.

Whether this commentary was actually done by Raghunandana, or another scholar using his name, is a topic of debate. Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1810) and [[Julius Eggeling]] (1891) suspected that it was not authored by him. Monmohan Chakravarti (1915), Rajendra Chandra Hazra (1950) and [[Pandurang Vaman Kane]] (1972), on the other hand, ascribed the work to Raghunandana.<ref name="Ludo_2002">{{cite book |title=Jimutavahana's Dayabhaga : The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal |author=Ludo Rocher |author-link=Ludo Rocher |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QfA7OQtxYM0C&pg=PA16 |year=2002 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-803160-4 |page=16 }}</ref>

The commentary retained high standing and was used in court to answer disputed questions of ''Dāyabhāga''.<ref>Rocher,''Jimutavahana's Dāyabhāga: The Hindu Law of Inheritance in Bengal'', (Oxford University Press, 2002), 16.</ref> The Calcutta High Court declared that Raghunandana's commentary of the ''Dāyabhāga'' is the best of all commentaries.<ref>Kāne, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 892.</ref>

==Dating==
The time of the writing is a topic of debate in the Hindu Law field. Many of the previous authors to which Jīmūtavāhana refers have been lost. Scholars such as Rājkumār Sarvādhikārī estimate his writing to have occurred in the fifteenth century, yet Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kāne believes he wrote between 1090 and 1130.<ref>M. Chakravarti, Part I. Bengal, (J.A.S.B., 1915) 321-327</ref> Commentaries and names mentioned in the ''Dāyabhāga'' prove that Jīmūtavāhana cannot be placed earlier than 1125 AD.<ref>Kane, P. V., ''History of Dharmaśāstra'', (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 712.</ref> The vast differences between scholars appear on later dates.

==Location==
The provisions relating to property rights are followed in [[West Bengal]], [[Bihar]], [[Purvanchal]], [[Jharkhand]], [[Odisha]] and [[Assam]].

==Hindu Succession Act==
*The [[Hindu Succession Act]] (Act No. 30 of 1956) resulted in many changes being made to both the ''Mitākṣarā'' and the ''Dāyabhāga'' systems regarding succession and partition.<ref name="Kane P. V"/>

== Notes ==

{{Reflist}}

==References==
* {{cite book |last=Chakravarti |first=M. |title=Part 1. Bengal |year=1915 |publisher=J.A.S.B. Publ }}
* {{cite book |last=Lingat |first=Robert |title=The Classical law of India |year=1973 |publisher=Oxford UP Publ |location=New York }}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dayabhaga}}
[[Category:Hindu law]]
[[Category:Ancient Indian law]]

Dāyabhāga - Revision history

UpdateBot at 18:14, 8 January 2022