KSLU Solved Question Papers
Family Law I (Hindu Law)
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 5
2014 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 5 Family Law I (Hindu Law) 2014 Jun Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2014 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2014 Jun examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all 5 Questions. (2) Figures to the right indicate marks. (3) Answers should be written completely either in English or in Kannada.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Trace the history of the different schools of Hindu Law, pointing out their distinguishing features.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what a school is (a body of law based on a leading commentary, not a new source); the history in stages: the Smritis; the age of commentaries and digests (Vijnaneshwara's Mitakshara at the Chalukya court of Kalyana, in present-day Karnataka; Jimutavahana's Dayabhaga in Bengal); the regional sub-schools and their leading works (Benares, Mithila, Bombay, Madras); the British courts and the Privy Council fixing the schools as law (Collector of Madura); how a family's school is decided (origin, migration, custom); the distinguishing features (birthright, coparcenary, the nature of a share, alienation, Sukhram, survivorship, partition, the basis of inheritance, factum valet), with Ghamandi Ram; the later history: legislation narrowing the gap (1937, 1956, 2005; Vineeta Sharma); a table; a conclusion.
What a school of Hindu law is
A school of Hindu law is not a separate religion or a new source of law. It is a body of law that grew up around a leading commentary on the Smritis, and was followed in a region. The schools arose because different commentators read the same texts differently, and local customs pulled them further apart.
There are two main schools: the Mitakshara and the Dayabhaga. The Mitakshara has several sub-schools.
The history in stages
Stage 1: the Smritis
The Smritis, above all those of Manu and Yajnavalkya, set out the rules of conduct, law and penance. But they were brief, often in verse, and sometimes conflicted with one another. They needed explaining before they could be applied.
Stage 2: the great commentaries
Two commentaries became the foundation of the schools.
- The Mitakshara. Vijnaneshwara wrote it in the eleventh century as a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti. He lived at the court of the Western Chalukya king at Kalyana, in present-day Karnataka. The work became the leading authority for most of India.
- The Dayabhaga. Jimutavahana wrote it in Bengal, generally placed in the twelfth century. It is not a commentary on one Smriti but a digest drawing on many. It departed from the Mitakshara on the family's property.
Stage 3: regional sub-schools
Within the Mitakshara area, local writers produced their own works, and local usage differed. The sub-schools that resulted are:
- Benares, in much of north India, relying on the Mitakshara itself, with works such as the Viramitrodaya.
- Mithila, in north Bihar, relying on works such as the Vivada Chintamani.
- Bombay (Maharashtra), in western India, giving weight to the Vyavahara Mayukha of Nilakantha.
- Madras (Dravida), in the south, relying on works such as the Smriti Chandrika.
Karnataka shows the pattern clearly. The northern districts, once part of the Bombay Presidency, follow the Bombay school. The old Mysore area and the south follow the Madras school. The Dayabhaga's own later writers, such as Raghunandana, developed the Bengal school. In Punjab, custom largely displaced the texts.
Stage 4: the British courts
From the late eighteenth century, the British courts applied Hindu law to Hindus in matters of family and succession. Translations by scholars such as Colebrooke made the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga available to English judges. The courts then treated each school as binding in its region.
The Privy Council gave the regional differences legal force. Collector of Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga Sathupathy, (1868) 12 MIA 397, the Ramnad case. A zamindar's widow adopted a son without her husband's authority but with the consent of his sapindas, his near kinsmen. The Privy Council upheld the adoption under the Dravida school, though other schools required the husband's authority. It also said that "clear proof of usage will outweigh the written text of the law". So the schools, and the customs behind them, became settled law.
Stage 5: legislation
From 1929 onwards, Parliament began to reduce the differences. The Hindu Women's Right to Property Act 1937 gave widows rights across the schools. The Hindu Succession Act 1956 replaced the schools' rules of inheritance with one code. The 2005 amendment made daughters coparceners in the Mitakshara. Today the schools differ mainly on the joint family.
How a family's school is decided
- By origin. A family is governed by the school of the place it came from.
- By migration. A family that moves keeps its school, unless it is shown to have adopted the law of its new home.
- By custom. A proved custom of a family or community prevails over the school's general rule.
The distinguishing features
The root difference is the son's right in ancestral property: by birth in the Mitakshara, only on the father's death in the Dayabhaga.
The Mitakshara coparcenary. State Bank of India v. Ghamandi Ram, AIR 1969 SC 1330, set out its incidents. Lineal male descendants up to the third generation acquire ownership in ancestral property by birth. They may demand partition at any time. Until partition, each member's ownership extends over the whole property jointly with the rest. On a member's death, his interest lapsed to the survivors. Survivorship and male-only membership have since been changed by section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.
Alienation of a member's interest. Sukhram v. Gauri Shankar, AIR 1968 SC 365, records that in the Benares school a coparcener cannot sell his undivided interest without the others' consent. In the Bombay and Madras schools, he may sell it for value. In the Dayabhaga, he may sell his defined share freely.
The other features follow from the root difference, as the table shows.
| Feature | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
| Founder and text | Vijnaneshwara, on Yajnavalkya | Jimutavahana, a digest |
| Region | All India except Bengal and Assam | Bengal and Assam |
| Son's right in ancestral property | By birth | On the father's death |
| Feature | Mitakshara | Dayabhaga |
|---|---|---|
| Father's power over ancestral property | Limited | Absolute |
| A member's share | Fluctuating till partition | Defined |
| Selling one's share | Benares no; Bombay and Madras for value | Freely |
| On a member's death | Survivorship (now succession, s.6(3)) | Succession |
| Partition | Severance of status | Division of defined shares |
| Basis of inheritance | Blood relationship | Spiritual benefit |
| Factum valet | Limited | Wide |
An assessment
The schools show how Hindu law grew. It was never one fixed code. It was a set of texts read differently in different regions, and shaped by local usage. That flexibility let the law fit very different communities.
It also had costs. The same question, such as whether a son could sell his share, had different answers in Pune and in Varanasi. Families who migrated, or who married across regions, faced uncertainty. Courts had to decide which school applied before they could decide the dispute. These costs were one reason Parliament codified succession in 1956, and why the 2005 amendment applied one rule to daughters everywhere.
The schools today
The Hindu Succession Act 1956 now governs inheritance for both schools. The 2005 amendment ended survivorship and made the daughter a coparcener "in the same manner as the son". Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, held that her right arises by birth. What still separates the schools is the joint family: the Mitakshara birthright in ancestral property and the Dayabhaga father's absolute power over it.
Conclusion. The schools grew from different readings of the Smritis. The Mitakshara, written at Kalyana in present-day Karnataka, spread over most of India and split into the Benares, Mithila, Bombay and Madras sub-schools. The Dayabhaga governed Bengal and Assam. The British courts, through cases like the Ramnad case, fixed the schools and their customs as law. Their defining difference is the son's birthright, from which the other differences in coparcenary, alienation and survivorship follow, as Ghamandi Ram and Sukhram show. Legislation has since unified inheritance, and Vineeta Sharma confirms the daughter's birthright, leaving the joint family as the schools' main point of difference.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 5 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.