10 Son's Pious Obligation

Son’s Pious Obligation
By
Kavita Singh
Associate Professor
NLIU, Bhopal
 Liability of Son to discharge the debts incurred by his
father or grandfather arises from three sources –
1. The religious duty of discharging the debtor from the
sin of his debts.
2. The moral duty of paying a debt contracted by one
whose assets have passed into the possession of another.
3. The legal duty of paying a debt contracted by one
person as having an authority conferred by Hindu Law
to act on behalf of another
 Due to belief in rebirth, it is believed that even if the body is left
behind, the soul carries the fruits of the deeds and the burden of
debt into the next life.
 Katyayana in ‘Vyavahara Mayukha’ said –” He who having
received a sum borrowed or the like, does not repay it to the
owner, will be born hereafter in his creditor’s house as slave or a
servant”.
 Thus the emphasis was not that the creditor should get his due ,
but father (as he did not pay his debt) should not incurr the wrath
of destiny.
 Privy Council in Sat Narain v. Rai Bhadur Sri Kishan Das 63 IA
384 observed – “ Doctrine not based on any necessity for the
protection of the creditor but based on pious obligations of the
sons to pay their father’s debts”
 Since it was a religious or spiritual duty, the purpose of debt
became important. Thus debts were classified as ‘Vyavaharika ‘
or ‘Avyavaharika’ debts.
 Hemraj v. Khemchand (1943) 7 IA 171 – Court Observed – “
Avyavaharika Debts are the debts incurred repugnant to good
morals . Debts incurred which could not be justified in
accordance with the religious tenets or person’s Dharma.
Vyavaharika debts are equivalent to lawful, usual debts or taken
customarily”
 Thus, Avyavaharika debts are unusual, not sanctioned by law
and attributable to his father’s follies or caprice. Some of the
examples of Avyavaharika debts are –
• Loan taken by father to meet expenses of his vices.
• Debts taken by father to fight litigation against the son to defeat
the legitimate rights of the son.
• Debts incurred by father for liqour , for payment of fine, for
gambling etc..
 Shift in the Approach of Doctrine of Son’s Pious
Obligation –
• Dharmashastra’s emphasis was to save the soul of the
father from evil consequences and was not directed
towards benefitting the creditor
• Gradual implementation of the doctrine shifted the
focus of the courts from spiritual benefits to the father
to the rights of the creditor to have their money back..
Now if son has to escape liability, he has to prove two conditions
1) Debts were for some immoral or illegal purposes.
2) Creditors had the knowledge of the fact that it was for ‘Avyavaharik
purpose only
If only condition 1 is fulfilled , the son cannot escape the liability (Luh
Amrit Lal v. Doshi Jayanthi lal Jethalal AIR 1960 SC 964).
Original dictates are silent about creditor’s knowledge as the same w

introduced by the British Indian Courts.
Thus, the burden of proof tilted the balance in favour of creditors and pio
obligation turned into legal liability.
 Material Time for Examining the nature of the Debt-
Where receiving money was lawful at the time of the receipt or

inception, subsequent commission of an offence or
misappropriation will not absolve the son from his obligation to
pay the debts.
 In Ramasubramania v. Shivkami Ammal (AIR 1925 Mad. 841),
the court proposed the twin rules for determining whether a debt
contracted by father is binding on sons – (i) If the debt in its
inception is not immoral , subsequent dishonesty of father does
not exempt the son and (ii) It is not every lapse from the right
conduct, that stamps the debt as immoral.
a secretary of a school committee, received huge government grants fo
ited in fixed deposit in a specific bank and could be used only for spec
ut in a fixed deposit and some amount was deposited in the father’s a
d then he died.
o be recovered from sons who contended that the act of father was c
liable to pay .
authorised purposes amounted to a criminal breach of trust under IPC

s a civil liability for the money that was received by father , but was
liability could be attracted. The sons were liable to pay that amount”.
 Abolition of Pious Obligation of Son to pay debts of
Father –
After the commencement of the HS(Amendment) Act,2005 to
discharge any such debt, no court shall recognize any right to
proceed against a son, grandson or great grand son for the
recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great
grand father solely on the ground of the pious obligation under
the Hindu Law, of such son, grand son or great grand son to
discharge any such debt.
However, in case of any debt incurred before the
commencement of HS(Amendment) Act,2005, the
creditor shall have a the right to proceed against the
son, grand son or great grand son(born or adopted prior
to the HS (Amendment) Act,2005) ; or any alienation
made in respect of or in satisfaction of , any such debt,
such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the
rule of pious obligation.
 One of the features of classical Hindu Law that imposed
upon son, grand son or great grand son the liability to pay
their father’s debts (under the doctrine of Son’s Pious
Obligation) has been abrogated by the 2005 Amendment.
Now, the repayment of debts contracted by any Hindu
would be his personal responsibility and the male
descendants would not be liable to the creditor. Only the
debts contracted before the enforcement of the amendment
are subject to the rules of classical Hindu law. S.6(4) of the
HS (Amendment) Act,2005 is prospective in nature.
THANK - YOU

10 Son's Pious Obligation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Son's Pious Obligation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 Son's Pious Obligation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Son’s Pious Obligation

Original dictates are silent about creditor’s knowledge as the same w

Where receiving money was lawful at the time of the receipt or

authorised purposes amounted to a criminal breach of trust under IPC

You might also like