( 1 ) MAJORITY view : The questions referred to the larger Bench are : (1) What is the mode of determination of widow s interest in coparcenary property in Southern India ? (2) Can she claim any share in the joint family property ?

( 2 ) THE essential consideration is whether the ratiocination in the Full Bench decision of this Court in a Seethamahalakshmamma v Y. Chalamaiah (1) AIR 1974 A P 130 holding that the wife is not entitled to a share in a partition of coparcenary property among father and eons of a Hindu family governed by madras school of Mitakshara is a good law in view of Section 6 of the Hindu succession Act and the decision of the supreme Court in Gurupad v Hirabai (2) air 1976 S C 1239.

( 3 ) THE Hindu law is the spin-off of vedas, Smritis. commenteries and digests legislative enactments and judicial decisions. Several commentaries and digests were compiled as to the essence of shastric law expounded in Vedas and smrithis and the commentaries and digests of Mitakshara and Viramitrodava and Jimuta Vahanas are accented with solemnity and reverence by people The commentaries are the amalgam of distillation of ancient Sutras and preponderance usage and custom in the community and it is a happy blend ironing out the inconsistencies and angularities. The origin and development of schools of hindu Law is traced by the Privy Council in Collector of Madura v Mootto Ramalinga (3) 12 M I A 397 as follows :"the remoter sources of Hindu Law are common to all the different schools the process by which those schools have been developed seems to have been of this kind. Works universally or generally viewed became the subject of subsequent commentaries. The commentator put his own gloss on the ancient text and his authority having been received in one and rejected in another part of India, schools with conflicting dectrine arose". The commentaries of Mitakshara in general and particularly the commentary on yajnavalkya are followed through out india except Bengal. In Bangala area the chief commentary is that of Jimutavahana and it is called Dayabegha. By efflux of time diverse interpretations rendered by commentators as to subtle and complex dimensions and also bowing to usage the mitakshara doctrine sprouted off-shoots with slightly different shades of opinion designated as Madras, Bombay, Benaras and Mithila schools of Hindu law. The essence of Mitakshara doctrine permeated through all these schools and there are slight variations as a result of different approaches and accent by certain treatises and commentaries influenced by local custom and usage. Smriti Chandrika and saraswati Vilas considered to be the prominent exponents of Mitakshara supplement but not supersede Mitakshara. The commentators endeavoured to string shades and hues in Shastras. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Budha Singh v Laithi Singh (37 All 604) these treatises can be called upon to "explain a dubious or interminate phase of term in the Mitakshara". The difference between Mitakshara and Dayabhaga schools are vital. In Mitakshara school, the son gets a right to the joint family property by birth and can demand partition during the father s life-time. But in Dayabhaga school the son is precluded from demanding partition during the life time of the father and the father is considered as absolute owner of the property. Under Mitakshara law, the widow of a deceased coparcener cannot enforce partition of her husband s share against his brothers but under the dayabhaga school s h e is entitled t o demand partition.

( 4 ) IT is not out of context to refer to Kautilya s Arthasastra translated for the first time by Shama Sastry. By caption this compilation is popularly understood as treatise or articulation of financial set up. But, however, it embraces all aspects of law, viz. , state-craft, administration of justice, legal procedure, woman s rights, marriage, divorce, fiseal measures, sociology, philosophy etc. But, however it is considered a