Hindu Administrative Institutions c12.s2.7

c12.s2.7

¹ This raises the question of the institution of property. The joint-family becoming the basis on which Hindu society rested, it follows that corporate property is the rule and absolute unrestricted ownership the exception. In the words of P. N. Banerjea every member of the family was entitled, in principle, to the use of the family property held in common. But it was not a right equally shared by all. The head alone had the control of it and all the others were in a position of subordination to him in point of right. This practice still holds good among the Numbudris of Malabar. Latterly a transformation has come over the whole system. The Hindu law has been modified according to the changing conditions of the time. There are two schools of law—the Mitakshara School, A.D. 1060 and the Dāyabhāga, A.D. 1400. The first prevails outside Bengal and the latter within. Under the first the head of the family continues to be the sole authority to dispose of the property though limitations are placed upon his rights. He could utilize it only in the interests of the family, or in the face of any legal necessity incidental to the property. But regular partition of the property is permissible at any time. It is an equitable and elastic system in the sense that the sons get an equal share with the father in the case of hereditary immovable property; and a son or any legal heir could claim partition against the will of the head of the family. Thus the institution of private property is clearly recognized under the Mitakshara law.