Debts and Doctrine of Pious Obligation | Family Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Concept of Pious Obligation under Hindu Law 

• Originally governed by Smriti law, the doctrine of pious obligation holds that sons and grandsons are responsible for debts contracted by their father and grandfather. The Privy Council extended this obligation to great-grandsons as well, since all male descendants up to three generations are coparceners. Each coparcener is religiously obliged to pay debts incurred by their ancestor, as long as the debts were not for immoral or illegal purposes.
• The concept of pious obligation is rooted in the Dharmashastras, which view non-payment of debt as a sin leading to severe consequences in the afterlife. Therefore, debts must be settled in all circumstances, unless they were contracted for immoral or illegal reasons. Vrihaspati stated that if the father is deceased, his debt must be repaid by his sons before attending to their own debts, and a debt incurred by the paternal grandfather must be settled first.
• The Mitakshara presents a stronger stance, asserting that when the father is abroad or suffering from an incurable disease, the responsibility for his debts falls on the sons and grandsons, regardless of the father's property ownership. The order of liability is: in the absence of the father, the son is responsible; in the absence of the son, the grandson is responsible.

Doctrine of Pious Obligation

• Under  Hindu Law  , the doctrine of pious obligation holds that sons are expected to repay their father's debts from the ancestral property they inherit. This obligation is rooted in religious duty and continues unless the debts are for immoral or illegal purposes (avyavaharika).
• In the case of  Sidheshwar Mukherjee vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh  , the Supreme Court emphasized that non-payment of debts was considered a sin, and it was a son's duty to pay off his father's debts to prevent the father from facing consequences in the afterlife.
• However, legal modifications have limited a son's liability to the extent of his interest in the coparcenary property. Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons are now equally responsible for paying off the principal amount and interest of the debts.
• Sons are bound by pious obligation to discharge their father's debts from ancestral property, regardless of personal benefit from those debts, as long as the debts are not avyavaharika. Debts incurred for immoral or illegal reasons release sons from this obligation.
• Hindu law recognizes two main principles: the son’s inherent coparcenary rights, which vest upon birth, and the pious obligation to settle ancestral debts, making the entire estate liable for such debts. While traditionally, the pious obligation was irrespective of property acquisition, courts have now given this religious duty a legal standing.
• Pious obligation signifies a Hindu's commitment to religion, where failing to repay a debt leads to severe consequences in the afterlife. Hindu scriptures emphasize a son's duty to clear his father's debts, extending this obligation to grandsons and great-grandsons as they are all coparceners by birth.

Burden of Proof of the Debt 

• The son has a religious obligation to pay off their father's personal debts. If they wish to avoid this obligation, they can only do so if the debts are  polluted  or  avyavaharika  . The son must also prove that the creditor was aware of the pollution.
• The Apex Court in  Luhar Marit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal  stated that sons challenging alienations made by the father must show that the predecessor debts were immoral and that the purchasers were aware of this immorality.
• In the case of  Ramasamayyan v. Virasami Ayyar  , it was established that even if a loan is not for legal necessity or for the repayment of predecessor debt, the lender can, through a mortgage, claim recognition of a debt for which the father is personally liable. The estate can be sold without a personal decree against the father. After the sale, the son is bound by the sale unless he proves that the debt was non-existent or tainted with immorality or illegality.

Debts Outside the Scope of the Doctrine 

• Commercial Debts:  Commercial debts are considered outside the doctrine according to ancient law. In modern law, the son is obligated to pay commercial debts.
• Suretyship Debts:  Debts arising from suretyship by the father are not binding on his son and do not fall within the doctrine.
• Gaming Debts:  Debts related to gaming, such as those incurred through alcohol or liquor, are excluded from the doctrine according to both old and new laws.
•  vyavaharika Debts:  According to the Mitakshara, debts for causes repugnant to good morals, or debts for illegal or immoral purposes, are outside the doctrine.

Pious Obligation after the Amendment of 2005 

• Following the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005, the principle of  pious obligation  remains applicable against sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for recovering any debt owed by their father, grandfather, or great-grandfather solely based on the pious obligation  under Hindu law to discharge such debts.
• The  pious obligation doctrine  post-amendment allows the father during his lifetime to alienate the joint family property of himself and his son for the repayment of his personal debts, even if these debts were neither necessary nor beneficial for the family. This aspect of the doctrine is considered unjust and unreasonable.
• The legal and equitable consequence of the son's inheritance in the joint estate is that the father can encumber the joint family property for his personal debts, highlighting the residual impact of the pious obligation principle.
• Despite the changes in Hindu law, the pious obligation doctrine still reflects the historical perspective where the son's duty to pay his father's debts is emphasized, allowing the father to use joint family property for personal debt repayment.

Socio-Legal Impact of Doctrine of Pious Obligation

• The socio-legal impact of the pious obligation doctrine is not in line with contemporary jurisprudential trends, especially in the context of exclusive jurisprudence.
• Hindu law, as modified by various Acts, favors absolute ownership rights for Hindu females. It is inconsistent to allow the son's interest in joint family property to be affected by the pious obligation principle, particularly when women's limited estate has been abolished.
• There is a need to transform the pious obligation rule into absolute obligation, aligning it with the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. The Supreme Court's decision in Chandersen's case has already reflected this shift.
• The evolution of Hindu law through legislative changes and judicial interpretations necessitates a reevaluation of traditional concepts like pious obligation to ensure coherence with modern legal principles.