Explain the concepts Apratibandha Daya and Sapratibandha Daya

In case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma the Supreme Court finally clarified the confusion
created after the 2005 amendments in the Hindu Succession act in cases of Prakash vs. Phulwati
[1] and Danamma vs. Amar[2] case and held that women have the right to inherit the ancestral
by birth only like their male counterparts, it held that:
It is apparent that unobstructed heritage takes place by birth, and the obstructed heritage takes
place after the death of the owner
Here, it is significant to note that, the right, which is recognised under Section 6, is the right by
birth, and so, it is an unobstructed heritage. Hence, it is not the obstructed heritage, depending
upon the owners death. Therefore, coparcener-father need not be alive on the 9th September
2005, which is date of substitution of new Section 6, for the accrual of rights in favour of his son
or daughter coparceners. It is not necessary, either for the formation of a coparcenary, or for
becoming a coparcener that, a predecessor-coparcener should be alive. Here, death of
predecessor-coparcener is not relevant, but the birth within degrees of coparcenary.

Apratibandha Daya:
Apratibandha Daya (unobstructed heritage) property inherit from direct male ancestor but not
exceeding three degree who is higher than him. Under the concept heritage is devolved by
survivorship. The essential feature of unobstructed heritage, according to Mitakshara Law is
that the sons, grandsons and great grandsons acquire an inherit in the property inherited by
birth. Their rights attach to it by their birth as in case of Radha v Ram[3] it was held that the
property can be acquired by son and sons son by the interest of birth. The property is called
unobstructed because the accrual of the right to it is not obstructed by the existence of the
owner.

Thus, if A inherits property from his father or grandfather or great grandfather it is ancestral
property or unobstructed heritage in the hands of A as regards the male issue because the
existence of A an obstruction to his son acquiring an interest but as regards other relations he
hold it as his absolute property. If A has not male issue, other relation has no interest in the
property during the life-time of A.
Sapratibandha Daya :
Sapratibandha Daya (Obstructed Heritage) property inherited from any other relations i.e.
paternal uncle or brother, nephew etc., under this its devolved by inheritance. It is called
obstructed because the accrual of the rights to it is obstructed by the existence of the owner.
The owner holds it as his separate and absolute property. The relations of the owner do not
take a vested interest in it by birth. They are entitled to it only on the death of the owner. Thus
the property which devolves on parents, brothers, uncles, nephews, etc. on the death of the
last owner is obstructed heritage.
Obstructed heritage devolves by succession except in the following cases in which it passes by
survivorship.
Two or more sons, grandsons and great grandsons succeeding as heirs to the separate property
of their paternal ancestor take as joint tenants with rights or survivorship.
Two or more grandsons by a daughter who are living as members of a joint family succeeding as
heirs to their maternal grandfather take as joint tenants with rights of survivorship.
Two or more widows succeeding as heirs to their husband take as joint tenants with
survivorship rights.
Two or more daughters succeeding as heirs to their father take as joint, tenants. But in the
Bombay State, they take absolute estate in severalty.
The Mitakshara Law recognizes the distinction between obstructed and unobstructed heritage,
but under Dayabhaga Law. Every kind of heritage is obstructed and it does not recognize any
such distinction because according to Bengal School no person at all acquires any interest by
birth in the property of another and the rule of survivorship does not apply to this school.

Explain the concept of coparcenary under the Dayabhaga system of law

Dayabhaga School of Law, which is based on the code of Yajnavalkya commented by
Jimutvahana, governs the succession rules of Hindu Joint Families in only Assam and Bengal.
Dayabhaga School of law recognizes devolution only by succession. The Coparcenary is
established when the father is survived by more than one son. Sons inherit the property of
father equally and with agreement form a Coparcenary. Unlike Mitakshara Coparcenary it is a
creation by way of agreement and not by law. Son has no right by birth in the property of a
father irrespective of the fact whether it is separate or ancestral. Coparceners inherit a definite
share in the property of the father. At the time of death of coparcener his shares in the
property along with the separate property are inherited to his heirs and on their willingness a
Coparcenary is formed. The entire concept is based on inheritance and no difference between
separate and Coparcenary property identified. Sons under Dayabhaga Family have only a right
of maintenance father may dispose of the property at his will.
Under Dayabhaga School of Law the shares in Coparcenary property are definite and do not
fluctuate with death and birth of members in family. On the death of a coparcener the property
is devolved to heirs by way of inheritance.

Dayabhaga Property:

Dayabhaga Joint Family is a result of desire of family members to live together. The family is
joint in food, worship and estate. Since the possession of the property is united but on definite
share there is less chance of injurious act committed against one's property. Dayabhaga School
of Law does not differentiate between joint family property or ancestral property and separate
property since the concept of property is based on inheritance only. Dayabhaga Family is
presumed to be joint family but the property possessed by each coparcener is not presumed to
be a joint family property. In short Dayabhaga School of Law makes no difference between
ancestral property and separate property.

Difference between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga Coparcenary

Mitakshara Coparcenary cannot be formed by way of agreement whereas Dayabhaga

Coparcenary is formed with the desire of members living together with an agreement.
Mitakshara Coparcenary commences with the birth of a son whereas Dayabhaga Coparcenary
commences on the death of father.
Mitakshara Coparcenary includes more than one generation and for formation a relation of
father and son is essential. In case of Dayabhaga Coparcenary it can be formed only in the same
generation heirs.
Mitakshara Coparcenary provides limited right on property to coparcener. In Dayabhaga
Coparcenary the coparcener has absolute right over the property.
Mitakshara Coparcenary provides fluctuating share on the property whereas in Dayabhaga
Property the shares of coparceners are definite.
Mitakshara Coparcenary considers daughters as coparceners, after passing of Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005. In Dayabhaga Coparcenary if a deceased is survived by wife and
daughter, they both can form a coparcenary with the remaining coparceners. Hence not only
daughters but even widows can be coparceners in Dayabhagar Coparcenary.
Alienation of Property (Separate and Coparcenary)

Alienation of a property means a transfer of ownership rights of a property. Alienation can be

effected by way of sale, lease, mortgage, gift, or license. In a Hindu Joint Family the
Coparcenary property is possessed by the coparceners. The ancient rules governing Hindu Joint
Families provides that Karta can alienate property in certain circumstances which are –
Apatkale (during emergency), Kutumbarthe (for the purpose of family), and Dharmarthe (for
religious purpose). These categories were transformed into other with the modernization.

Alienation of Property of Hindu Joint Family can be done by a Karta, Coparcener and Father.
These entities possess different rights of alienation.

Alienation of Joint Hindu Property by Karta:

Karta can alienate property in three circumstances:

Legal Necessity
Benefit of Estate
Performance of religious & indispensable duties
Legal Necessity means a necessity which can be justified in law or sustained in law. The
Prerequisite conditions to validate any alienation under Legal Necessity are that the purpose
shall be lawful and the family does not have any alternative resource from which the necessity
can be fulfilled. Examples for this kind of necessity is to provide food, cloth, shelter to family
member, for marriage expenses, medical expenses, payment of rent etc.

Benefit of Estate includes those kinds of necessities which are required to benefit the joint
family estate. The transactions which are made to bring advantage to the property will be
considered valid. For example – sale of a small portion of property to improve condition of a
property which's valued more; or to fight hostile litigations against a property which's valued
more than the property sold etc.
Performance of religious & indispensable duties has also been given importance, and alienation
made for this purpose by Karta is also valid. In case when family has a requirement to perform a
religious ceremony, a property can be alienated to generate income to fulfill it. In case when a
family has contracted past debts for this purpose that can also be paid by alienating family's
property. Apart from aforementioned circumstances Karta can alienate the Joint Hindu Family
Property for any other purpose with the consent of major coparceners.

Alienation of Joint Hindu Property by Coparcener:

There can be two ways to alienate property by coparcener:

Involuntary Alienation
Voluntary Alienation
Involuntary Alienation of interest of a coparcener in the joint family property is done when a
coparcener has taken a separate debt and has exhausted with other resources to pay it and
court orders to execute a sale of the undivided interest of a coparcener from joint family
property. This can be done during the lifetime of the coparcener with the o rder of court in the
execution proceeding of the debt of such coparcener.

The concept of Involuntary Alienation of undivided interest of coparcener in a property leads to

the idea of extending the same to a coparcener as a matter of right. Voluntary Alienation can be
done when a coparcener with his willingness alienates his undivided interest in joint family
property to someone either by way of Gift, Sale and mortgage or renunciation. Mitakshara
School of Law considers alienation of undivided interest of a coparcener by gift wholly invalid
whereas Dayabhaga School of Law confers absolute right to coparcener to alienate his part or a
part of his share or property by way of Gift. In the case of Brindaban Tiwary vs. Awadhesh
Tiwary {2007 (4) PLRJ646, it was decided that in alienation by way of sale and mortgage
coparcener has to take consent of other coparceners unless the alienation is for legal necessity,
it was further held that even if the alienation is in favor of other coparcener consent of other
coparcener with that regard shall be taken. Earlier the rule was, as held in Thamma Vnkata
Subbamma V. Thamma Rattamma (1987 AIR 1775), that a coparcener can alienate his
undivided interest in the joint family property for a valuable consideration even without
consent of other coparceners. Coparcener can alienate property by renunciation as well, in case
when the share in the joint property has been alienated, consent of other coparceners is
required. Even when it is in favor of other coparceners but if the alienation of entire share in
favor of all other coparcener is made then the consent is not required. Coparcener may
renounce his share with a condition of payment of maintenance.

Alienation of Joint Hindu Property by Father:

The Hindu Joint Families are composed of lineal descendants of one ancestor having absolute
power to control the affairs of family members and property. Importance has been placed on a
Father in Hindu Joint Families. The power of father is even more than the powers of Karta. In
Dayabhaga School of Law, Father possesses absolute power of alienation of ancestral as well as
separate property. Mitakshara School of Law does not give absolute power of alienation of joint
family property to a father; he has absolute power of alienation of only separate property.
However certain extra rights of alienation of family property is allotted to a father than Karta
and a coparcener. Father may validly alienate the joint family property in two circumstances:

Gift of love & affection

Alienation to discharge his personal antecedent debt
Father may alienate a small portion of the joint family property by way of gift to his wife or
daughter or son-in-law which has been considered valid by Indian courts. Alienation under this
category can be validated only after ascertaining the relationship between father and the
person in whose favor gift is made as the relationship shall establish love and affection of
father. Here the gift can be a small portion of the movable property of the family; in case of
immovable property Indian courts have considered alienation of small part of immovable
property to a daughter as valid. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of Guramma
Deshmukh vs. Malappa (1964 AIR 510) that a father can validly alienate a small portion of
immovable property of the joint family property by way of gift to daughter for her
maintenance.

Father has right to alienate joint family property to discharge his antecedent debts as the sons,
who are usually coparceners, are under pious obligation to discharge his debts. The Bombay
High Court in the case of Bij Narain vs. Mangla Prasad {(1924) 26 BOMLR 500} settled a
prerequisite condition for such alienation which is that the debt taken by father should be
antecedent and shall not be for unethical or immoral purpose.
In cases when Karta, Coparcener or father alienates for any other purpose or oversteps while
alienating joint family property the same can be challenged in court of law by other
coparceners or family members having interest in the property and may get the same set aside.

Rights and Remedies of Alienee:

Alinee is the one in whose favor the alienation has been made. Alinee has been granted rights
by Indian courts, which are – Right to Partition, Right to Mesne Profits, Right to possession, and
Duty of being liable for the charges with which the property is alienated. Alinee possess right to
effect general partition from the property of coparcener. Even if Alienation was made of a small
portion or amount of coparcener's interest, a General Partition can be sought to actuate the
alienation by Alinee as the concept of partial partition which was followed by Indian Courts
previously has been abolished by Supreme Court. Further, Alinee has a right of Mesne profits
over the property alienated to him from the day of passing of the decree of partition suit.
Alinee also has a right of possession of the property alienated after the partition and none can
restrict him from possession of the property. However joint possession can't be granted to
Alinee, possession of property after general partition is only valid. Along with the rights, Alinee
has a duty to take the alienated property with all the charges and liabilities over it which
coparcener had before alienation.

Partition and Re-Union

Partition means to divide into parts or to separate. In view of Joint Hindu Family it means
division of joint family into smaller units. It means Hindu Joint family never comes to end as
even after partition it gives birth to other smaller joint families; however that is possible only
when those who are seeking partition have remaining lineal descendants. Partition can be done
in presence of at least two coparceners in the Hindu Joint Family. Partition can be of two kinds:
De facto Partition and De Jure Partition. De Jure partition refers to a partition which has taken
place but actual possession has not been given. De facto Partition means when the partition has
actually taken place, not only the ownership but also the possession of a property has been
transferred.

Partition can be made of only Joint Hindu Family Property; separate property of a coparcener
can never be subjected to partition. At the time of partition, previous possession of property is
not important. In case of indivisible property of the family when the number of such property is
lesser than the number of those claiming right over it, the value of same can be given to those
not receiving it. In a situation when the property has a special significance, e.g. idol of any god
worshipped by the family, the eldest coparcener may get it by order of court with the right of
access to other coparceners and family members. At the time of effecting partition it is not
required to divide entire joint family property or all coparcener. The share of the coparcener
seeking partition may only be divided and others may remain united in Coparcenary; however
partition happens with a branch of a person hence the interest of lineal descendants of the
person seeking partition will also be partitioned. Partition is a right of not only a coparcener but
also alinee in certain cases however this is not available in Dayabhaga Family, as only
coparcener has the right of partition of the property.

Partition can be demanded by a major coparcener. In case of minor coparcener he may through
his next major friend demand a partition. Once the partition is made it cannot be revoked
without the consent of all coparceners. Partition can be re-opened in few circumstances:

When any property was left out at the time of partition and there is no possibility of distributing
the same without re-opening the partition,
When any property was concealed by fraud at the time of partition,
When the partition was unjust and unfair to any coparcener who was minor at the time of
partition.
Once the partition made it does not bar the family members from reuniting. Family members
separated by effecting partition may with agreement reunite to live together once again.
Reunion can take place only at the instance of those coparceners who partitioned if new
members are added in the branches of the coparceners who partitioned they are not entitled to
be a part of reunited Coparcenary. Reunion can be done either by dwelling together or by a
formal agreement of reunion. It is not required to have existence of the similar property which
were separated since reunion is for love and affection of family members with the desire of
living together. Once the agreement of reunion is made it restores the family and Coparcenary,
coparceners have a joint possession of a property now. Reunion cannot be implemented by a
minor unlike partition where the representative of the minor may demand partition.

Who are 'sharers' ? What are their respective shares under Muslim Law?
(see attached pdf MUSLIM INHERITANCE 2)
Discuss spousal property reginus underthe Portuguese Civil Code.

Settlement of spousal property in India and the concept of women’s property

In contrast to the English Law women in India did not have to struggle so much
for their share in the spousal property. The laws in India were such that they
have had provisions for the settlement of spousal property in different
situations. Guroodas Banerjee says “Nowhere were proprietary rights of women
recognised so early as India, and in very few ancient system of law have these
rights been to largely conceded as in our own  [17].”  So, when the Indian
Divorce act of 1869 was made it was made similarly to that of the Matrimonial
Causes Act of 1857. So, Section 39 of the Indian Divorce act says that if the
women are guilty of adultery and there has been a divorce or a judicial
separation then the husband and her children will be entitled to a share in her
property. Similarly, in the Parsi Marriage and Divorce act of 1936 Section 50
says that if the wife is guilty of adultery then the property is divided and then
her children can get their own share for their benefits. For Muslim divorced
wives no provision for disposal/distribution of property is made on ranting
divorce under Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 but now s.3 (d) of the
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 makes provision for
the return of property of a divorced woman that was given to her before at or
after the marriage.[18]

But in the case of Hindu law, the position of the women has been good, it
means that she could own her individual property. The marriage does not affect
her position. According to Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 what
the definition of spousal property meant was any adjustments made by the
parents of the couple at or about the time of marriage will be termed as the
joint property of the couple. So, according to a judgement given by the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajendra Singh v Tulsa Bai[19] said that a
petition under Section 27 of the Hindu marriage act is only maintainable if it is
about the joint property of the couple and not their exclusive property.

In the case of Akasan Chin v Paravati[20] the court said that every court has
the power to settle property in the name of one of the spouses for his/ her
benefit till the time the property is jointly belonging to them (husband and wife
both) and that the property does not come under the factum of ‘separate
property’. Thus, Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not talk about
the separate property but only talks about the jointly owned property of the
couple in dispute. In order for a husband or a wife to get his or her separate
property then they would have to institute a separate suit altogether which
would not come under this divorce case[21].
The meaning or interpretation of the words ‘belonging jointly’ by M.M. Punchhi,
J. of the Punjab and Haryana high court in Surinder Kumar v. Madan Gopal
Singh[22] was given. He did not follow the narrow interpretation. He said that
the word ‘belong’ does not, necessarily reflect title to the property in the sense
of ownership. According to, him the word ‘belong’ denotes the joint use in their
day to day living”, whether the property was received “individually or
collectively”. Therefore, the entire emphasis is on the nature of the property
and not on the fact that it was jointly’ presented.   Thus he said “Properties and
articles presented from any source and to any one of them which by very
nature of the present, or by intention of the donor, or by agreement of spouses,
has come to be jointly in use by both the husband and the wife, can well be
said to belong jointly to both the them.”

In the case of Rashmi Kumar v Mahesh Kumar Bhada[23] the Supreme Court

has said that any kind of property be it movable or immovable, if it is gifted to
the woman before marriage or at the time of marriage then it is exclusively her
property and it is to be termed as stridhan. No one has got the right to take
away the stridhan from her not even her own husband. Under the Islamic
Shariah law, it is known as Mehr.

If the women gives her stridhan to her husband or any of his relatives and then
they use it inappropriately or convert the property then they have committed a
criminal breach of trust under Section 405 and Section 406 of the IPC[24] .

The wife can give her stridhan to her in laws or husband so that they keep it
safely but once she demands it back from them then it is their duty to return it
because they (the in laws) do not have a right of ownership or possession over
the stridhan. Any kind of alienation or conversion or misappropriation done by
the in laws or the husband then they are guilty of crime provided under sections
405 and 406 of the IPC. The wife can demand her stridhan at any point of time
and she can use it in whichever way she wants to because she is the absolute
and exclusive owner of the stridhan property. The husband of the woman can
use the stridhan only during times of famine or stress or emergency etc. But the
husband has the duty to give back the stridhan or something equal to the value
of that used stridhan to the wife whenever she needs it. Now stridhan can
include in it-

1. Gifts given to the woman before the ceremonial fire during the
marriage.
2. Gifts given to the woman during the bridal procession
3. Gifts given to the woman by her in-laws or husband
4. Gifts given to the woman by her parents or brother[25]
So, now a property exclusively belonging to the husband would be ‘Vara
Dakshina’ money given to the groom by the bride’s father at the time of
marriage[26] . And any inherited property exclusively in his name or any
property bought by him before his marriage.

Now comes the interesting part and that is if there is a house that was
exclusively bought or that belonged to the husband and if after marriage his
wife also stays in that house then that house becomes the dwelling house. This
means that she would have a right to residence in that property if there is a
divorce[27].

Women’s property rights are also mentioned in Section 14 of the Hindu

Succession Act, 1956 and Section 2 of the Women’s Estate and Widow’s
Remarriage Act, 1956 which says that a widow would have a right in her dead
husband’s property till she remarries or dies.

Presently, in India, only the State of Goa has a different set of laws. The
Portuguese drafted these laws (the Goa Civil Code, which follows the
Portuguese Civil Code) when they ruled over Goa – and are still in force.  So, in
Goa, there has been a continuing practice of uniform civil code for the past 500
years. In this state, marriage is considered as a contract and civil registration of
a marriage is compulsory. So if there is no pre-nuptial contract then during
divorce if there is a separation of property then the customs prevails. The
customs say that at the time of the marriage the bride and groom have to
register all kind of properties that they have so that all these properties are to
be treated as separate property during separation. If this step of registering the
separate property is not done then that property is to be treated as a part of
the community property or the property belonging jointly to the wife and the
husband. So therefore in Goa upon divorce without any prenuptial agreement
the wife and the husband get the equal amount that is a 50% share each in the
joint property. Thus, what the Portuguese believed was that this system of
giving an equal share to both the parties ensured equality and fairness. They
said that we should respect the contribution of the housewife in the buying of
that joint property even if she did not contribute financially. We should respect
the fact that some women upon their marriage give up their careers and
become full time housewives who take care of the welfare of the family
emotionally and physically which is equal to the financial contribution made by
the husband[28].

So in order to know the amount of contribution of the housewife or to know the

value of the housewife Justice Prabha Sridevan gave out a formula to calculate
the value of the housewife and thus she said “ Value of Housewife = Husband’s
Income + Wife’s income+ Value of husband’s household services, which means
that the value of the housewife will be increasing inversely proportional to the
extent of the husband’s participation in the household activities.”  In the same
case, the Hon’ble judge also mentions about the Australian Family Property Law
which says that “while distributing property in matrimonial matters the one has
to consider the contribution of the party towards the marriage, matrimonial
home, children born out of such wedlock and towards the welfare of the
family.”  And she also talks about the fact that “The homemaker, by applying
herself to the tasks at home liberates her spouse to devote his time and energy
and attention to tasks that augment his income and generate the property for
the family[29].”  Thus, if we try to understand what the Hon’ble judge wants to
say then she says that even though the housewife does not contribute
financially towards the buying of the property or the maintenance of the
property but still her acts (physical and emotional) towards the upkeep of the
welfare of the family are equal to the financial contributions made by her
husband.  Therefore, she is equally entitled to the matrimonial house or
property just like her husband upon divorce.

Hence, the amount to be given to the wife upon divorce from her husband is
totally the discretion of the judge because of the main reason that there is no
such law in India giving out the exact amount to be given.      

Avyavaharika Debt–
A debt when not acquired morally and legally is said to be “Avyavaharika” and this
relieve the son from paying off the debt after his father. This doesn’t cover only illegal
or Immoral debts, but also what court regards as unjust and unequitable.
The term ‘Avyavaharika’ means which is not lawful, moral and not admissible in the
law under normal circumstances. Colebrook translated the term as “a debt for a cause
repugnant to good morals”, and this definition was approved by the Privy Council in
S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Bokar (A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 282), as being the nearest approach to the
true conception of the term used in the Smritis.
Avyavaharika debt includes losses at play, promise under influence of lust, alcoholic
drinks etc.
Raghothaman v. Kannappan (AIR 1982 Mad 235)
This case held that son is not liable for any post- partition debt but for only that was
taken pre- partition 
The term ‘Avyavaharika debt’ is explained in a judgement of Supreme Court that is
S.M. Jakati and Ors. Vs. S.M. Borkar and Ors. (AIR 1959 SC 282).

Time barred debts 

Under the modern Hindu law, without any existence of promissory note claiming the
son to pay off the debt , there is no obligation on the son for the time- barred debt.
Time barred debt is not considered as ‘Avyavaharika’.
Doctrine of Antecedent debt
Antecedent legally means paying debt prior to time. Antecedent word means ‘prior’ or
‘preceding in point of time’. But Lord Dunedin defined the antecedent debt as
“antecedent in fact as well as in time”. Thus, two conditions are necessary—
(a) The debt must be prior in time- This can be explained as in point of time of debt
must proceed alienation
(b) The debt must be prior in fact- Debt and alienation cannot be in same transaction
and requires separate for debt and alienation. 
This further extends like father himself can alienate the joint property to relieve from
the debt but son can challenge it if debt is tainted. 
Under Prasad and others vs. govindaswami Mudaliar and other case, Supreme Court
held that father is legally entitled to to pay off his debt from joint family property and
so if son. But it will be allowed only if these two conditions will fulfill:
1. The debt was antecedent to the alienation and,
2. It was not incurred for an immoral purpose.

Doctrine of Pious Obligation

Pious obligation can be termed as religious duty that what is casted upon a son to repay every
single penny of debt acquired by his father legally and morally from the ancestral property of
him. The sole motive to inflict this burden on the son to make him responsible in debt also if he
is enjoying the ancestral property of his father. Not only son this has to continue with his son,
grandson and great-gradson is only liable to pay.

Siddheshwar Mukherjee vs. Bhubaneswar Prasad Narain is the first case which recognised pious
obligations, giving a reference of the Smriti which was used to be the source of law.
The older approach was to pay the whole debt by the son, grandson and great grandson, but in
modern Hindu law, now,  they are only liable to pay the equivalent to their ancestral property
they hold, it limits the liability of whole. They are not liable to pay the debt from his personal
property. All the three generations are equally liable to pay off the whole debt, unlike, earlier
when Son has the duty to pay off the whole debt but, grandson and great- grandson only
principal amount. The doctrine of the pious obligation is logical corollary to the son’s birth right,
which means as soon as the son is born in the family, he is liable to pay off the debt same as
succession. But the said concept is done away by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
and the said principle is also not recognised under Dayabhaga system.
Matrilineal Family:
In this type of family descent is traced along the female line and inheritance of
property also takes place along the female line of descent. The Veddas, the
North American Indians, some people of Malabar and the Khasi tribe are
matrilineal. Generally, the matrilineal families are matriarchal and
matrilocal.

On the basis of marriage, family has been classified into two types such as
monogamous and polygamous.

(i) Monogamous Family:

A monogamous family is one which is consisted of one husband
and one wife. In this type of family one man has one wife or one
woman has one husband at a given time. Hence a husband and a
wife living together, constitute a monogamous family. It is an ideal
form of family prevalent widely.

(ii) Polygamous Family:

When one man marries several woman or one woman marries
several men and constitute the family, it is polygamous family.
Again polygamous family is divided into two types such as
polygynous family and polyandrous family.

(for further study about family types, please go through pdf

TYPES OF FAMILIES)