Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The question presents a statement about a presumption of joint property in a joint family and asks whether this presumption belongs to the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. Hindu law has two main schools of inheritance: Mitakshara and Dayabhaga.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
The core difference between the two schools lies in the concept of joint family property (coparcenary).
- Mitakshara School: This school is prevalent in most of India. Under this school, a son, grandson, and great-grandson acquire an interest in the ancestral property by birth. There is a strong presumption that a family that is joint also possesses joint property. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that a particular property is their separate property.
- Dayabhaga School: This school is prevalent in Bengal and Assam. Under this school, the concept of right by birth does not exist. A son has no right in the ancestral property as long as his father is alive. The father is the absolute owner. There is no presumption that a joint family possesses joint property. The property is treated as being held in specific, defined shares by the members, even if they live jointly.
The statement in the question, "a family because it is joint possesses joint property," is the central presumption of the Mitakshara school, not the Dayabhaga school. Therefore, the statement as applied to the Dayabhaga school is incorrect, and the presumption itself belongs to the Mitakshara school. Option (B) correctly identifies this.
Step 4: Final Answer:
The presumption that a joint family possesses joint property is a feature of the Mitakshara school, not the Dayabhaga school.