Correct Option (B):
Statement 2 is correct. Under the Mitakshara system, which was prevalent across most of India except Bengal and Assam, a son acquired a right by birth in the ancestral property (coparcenary property). This allowed him to claim a share even during his father's lifetime. In contrast, the Dayabhaga system, followed primarily in Bengal and Assam, did not recognize birthright in ancestral property. A son's right to property arose only upon the death of the father, who remained the absolute owner of the property during his lifetime.
Incorrect Options:
Statement 1 is incorrect. The Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems were two distinct schools of Hindu law governing inheritance and property rights. They represented regional variations in legal interpretation rather than being specific to different castes. Mitakshara was followed in most parts of India, while Dayabhaga was confined mainly to Bengal and Assam.
Statement 3 is incorrect. Both the Mitakshara and Dayabhaga systems primarily addressed the inheritance and property rights of male members within a family. While the Dayabhaga system did grant a widow a limited right to her deceased husband's share, neither system comprehensively dealt with property held by both male and female members in the manner implied by the statement. The core principles of both systems revolved around male succession and coparcenary property.