Which of the following is entitled to enforce partition of the coparcenary property under Dayabhaga Law ?

Under the Dayabhaga school, sons acquire no interest in ancestral property by birth; a coparcenary arises only on the father's death, and each coparcener holds a definite share, even though possession is joint. Each adult coparcener, male or female (a widow taking her husband's share is a coparcener under this school), can demand partition and the separation of that share.

Unlike the Mitakshara rule before 2005, the right is not confined to male coparceners. A minor coparcener cannot demand partition at will: a suit brought on his behalf by a next friend is decreed only if the court finds partition to be for his benefit. So neither a rule for every coparcener, adult or minor, nor one for males only is correct.