Debts and the doctrine of pious obligation - Family Law I - Hindu Law

← All Family Law I - Hindu Law topics Past papers

On this page

1. Kinds of debt in a joint family
2. The doctrine of pious obligation
3. Avyavaharika debts
4. Antecedent debt and alienation by the father
5. Abolition: section 6(4) HSA as amended in 2005
6. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

The date of the debt decides the answer. For a debt contracted by a father before 9 September 2005, the old doctrine of pious obligation still applies. For a debt contracted after that date, section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act bars a creditor from proceeding against the son on the ground of pious obligation alone. Begin every problem by fixing the date.

1. Kinds of debt in a joint family

Debts contracted by the karta for legal necessity or for the family business bind the whole joint family property, and every coparcener's interest in it. This rule rests on the karta's powers, not on pious obligation.
Personal debts of a coparcener bind his separate property and, in his lifetime, his undivided interest may be attached and sold in execution of a decree against him. They do not bind the other coparceners.
Personal debts of the father, not for necessity, are the subject of the doctrine of pious obligation.

2. The doctrine of pious obligation

The smritis treated non-payment of debt as a sin that would follow the debtor into the next world. A son was therefore under a religious duty to pay his father's debts, to free his father's soul. Under the Mitakshara this became a legal rule: the son, grandson and great-grandson are liable to pay the debts of the father, grandfather and great-grandfather, provided the debts are not avyavaharika (tainted by illegality or immorality).

Extent. The liability is not personal. It is limited to the son's interest in the joint family property. His separate property is not liable.
When it arises. It exists during the father's lifetime as well as after his death, and survives a partition unless provision for the debt was made at the partition.
Burden of proof. The son who resists liability must show that the debt was avyavaharika. He need not be shown to have benefited from the debt.
Execution. A creditor who obtains a money decree against the father can attach and sell the entire joint family property, including the sons' interest, in execution, and the sons are bound unless they prove the debt was tainted: Luhar Amrit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal, 1960 INSC 105, AIR 1960 SC 964.

3. Avyavaharika debts

The son is not bound to pay a debt that is avyavaharika, a word the courts have translated as “not lawful, usual or customary”. The texts list debts for spirituous liquor, for lust (gifts to a mistress), for gambling, unpaid fines, unpaid tolls, idle gifts and promises made without consideration, and the father's liability as surety for another's appearance. Courts have extended the category to debts arising from criminal or fraudulent acts of the father, such as misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, where the act was immoral at its inception. A debt is not tainted merely because it was improvident or speculative; a business loss is binding.

4. Antecedent debt and alienation by the father

The father, as karta, can alienate joint property for legal necessity in the ordinary way. Additionally, because of pious obligation, the father can sell or mortgage joint property, including his sons' interest, to pay off an antecedent debt that is not tainted. The rules were stated by the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad (1924) 51 IA 129:

the manager of a joint estate cannot alienate or burden it as manager except for necessity;
if he is the father and the other members are his sons, he may, by incurring a debt not for an immoral purpose, lay the estate open to be taken in execution of a decree for that debt;
if he purports to burden the estate by a mortgage, the mortgage does not bind the estate unless it was given to discharge an antecedent debt;
“antecedent debt” means a debt antecedent in fact as well as in time: it must be truly independent of, and not part of, the transaction that is being challenged;
the rule applies whether the father is alive or dead.

So a father who borrows on a promissory note in 2000 and later, in 2003, mortgages the family house to pay that creditor binds his sons. A father who borrows in 2003 by mortgaging the house in the same transaction does not bind them, as the debt is not antecedent; the creditor must instead sue on the debt and execute the money decree.

5. Abolition: section 6(4) HSA as amended in 2005

Section 6(4) provides that after the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognise any right to proceed against a son, grandson or great-grandson for the recovery of any debt due from his father, grandfather or great-grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under Hindu law to discharge such debt.

The proviso saves the past. For any debt contracted before the commencement of the 2005 Act, nothing in section 6(4) affects:

the right of a creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson; or
any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of any such debt;

and such right or alienation is enforceable under the rule of pious obligation as if the amendment had not been enacted. The Explanation says “son”, “grandson” and “great-grandson” in the proviso refer to those born or adopted before the commencement of the 2005 Act.

What section 6(4) does not abolish: the karta's power to bind the family for legal necessity; the liability of joint property for family-business debts; and the liability of an heir, under ordinary succession law, to pay the debts of the deceased out of the estate he inherits.

Trap. Pious obligation was never a personal liability. Even before 2005 the creditor could reach only the son's interest in the joint property, not his salary or separate property. And the doctrine applies only to the son's line, not to a brother, nephew or other coparcener.

6. Problem

F borrowed Rs 10 lakh from C in 2003 for his own business and Rs 5 lakh from D in 2012 for the same business. Both loans are unpaid. F's sons S1 (born 1990) and S2 (born 2008) object to C and D attaching the joint family house. Advise.

Issue. Whether the sons' interest in the joint house is liable for F's debts under pious obligation.

Law. Pious obligation before 2005; section 6(4) HSA and its proviso and Explanation; the karta's power for family-business debts.

Application. C's debt (2003) is before the 2005 Act. The proviso preserves C's right to proceed against S1, who was born before 2005, on the basis of pious obligation, so long as the debt is not avyavaharika; a business loan is not. S2 was born after 2005 and falls outside the Explanation, so C cannot rely on pious obligation against him. D's debt (2012) is after the Act; section 6(4) bars D from proceeding against either son on the ground of pious obligation. But if F borrowed as karta for a family business, both debts bind the joint property under the ordinary rules of legal necessity, independently of pious obligation, and both creditors may proceed against the house on that basis. F's own interest is liable in any event.

Conclusion. If F's business was his personal business, C can reach F's interest and S1's interest; D can reach only F's interest. If it was a family business, both can proceed against the whole house.

How this is examined

As a 10-mark essay: “Explain the doctrine of pious obligation. What is its present position?” Write the origin, the extent of liability, avyavaharika debts, Brij Narain's propositions, and section 6(4) with its proviso. Short notes: “Antecedent debt”, “Avyavaharika debts”. Questions on the 2005 amendment also expect a paragraph on section 6(4).