DOCTRINE OF PIOUS OBLIGATION UNDER THE HINDU LAW. BY - SADHANA UMASHANKAR PRASAD & DR. ABHA SHARMA
DOCTRINE OF
PIOUS OBLIGATION UNDER THE HINDU LAW.
AUTHORED BY - *SADHANA UMASHANKAR
PRASAD
& ** DR. ABHA SHARMA[1]
Abstract:-
The antique principle of pious
obligation was ruled by smriti law. There is a pious obligation on the sons and
grandsons to pay the debts contracted by the father and grandfather. According to
privy council this obligation extends to great grandsons also because all the
male children active to three compeers create coparcenary and every coparcener
is under a religious responsibility to pay the liability contracted by their
ancestor, provided such debt was not taken for wicked or illegal purpose. Thus the
responsibility of the attention of the sons in such cases to free the debts
incur by the father is undoubted, although the technique and way of its
implement by the creditor would differ and the sons must be pay for each
chance, be it in an ensemble or effecting events to query the compulsory
scenery of the arrears or liability. The huf system is an only one of its kind
trait of the indian society and the idea of pious obligation proceed as a yarn
which attach the relations as one and put off it from breakdown. Pious commitment
comprises together devout as well as fabric features and makes the successor(s)
in charge/answerable for holy duties, like the theater the last finances of the
departed, paying reverse sum unpaid accumulate through the late and too
rewarding further tasks gone unfinished in admiration. On one occasion pious
obligation is abrogated, the notions of combined family also experience a gust.
Keywords: -
Hindu law, Indian Penal Code (IPC), the
Indian Succession Act (ISA), 1956.
Introduction:-
A son is under this doctrine to
release debt of his father out of his inherited assets still stipulation he had
not been advantages and presented the overdue are not avyavaharika
(Unreasonable), Under the Hindu Law. The sons get forgave from their commitment
to liberation the debit of their father from the family assets only if the debt
was one contaminated by means of wickedness before illegality.
The responsibility that is troupe
upon the son actuality holy and ethical, the accountability of the son for the
liability must be observed with allusion to its personality when the duty was
first incurred. If at the foundation there was nothing unlawful or unacceptable
to straight mores, the following subornation is in not liquidating his
compulsion will not absolve the son from liability for the debt.
Meaning: -
‘Pious obligation’ means the moral
liability of son, he has to pay or discharge their father’s non-avyavaharik
debts. The unpaid rented might not be of officially permitted need or for
profit of land. Thus, if the father is the Karta of a HUF, he may estrange the
coparcenary material goods for release the precursor arrears. The sons are
under the duty to get well such estranged possessions by reimbursing.
Origin: -
The doctrine has its source in the
beginning of Smriti writers who observe not paid of debt as a positive
indulgence, the wickedness penalty of which go after the un-liberate debtor
still in the later than universe. It is for the purpose of keeping the parents
from his suffering in the after that earth that obligations forced ahead.
A sequence of verdicts in the court
of law of recent India have progressed the customary explanation of the
responsibilities of the boy-child, grandson, and great-grandson. The old-style
difference was that the son was legally responsible to recompense the main and
the interest. Usually, the grandson was accountable to wage only the principal
but no interest, and the great-grandson was liable only to the extent that the
paternal estate came into his hands. The son, grandson, and the great-grandson
are liable equally for inherited obligations, but not individually answerable,
and that their liability is co-extensive and limited to the level that they
have joint property in their possession.
Reasons for Liability: -
The reason for liability of a son may
be said to be,
-
Religious
and piety.
-
The
son taking interest in the ancestral property by his very birth.
That is why the Doctrine has been
named as.
Nature of Liability: -
The liability of a son is not
personal. It is limited to the son’s may be a minor or a major; application of
the doctrine has no exception. Moreover, this obligation cannot be abrogated by
the Indian Succession Act, 1956.
Avyavaharik debts: -
According
to Colebrooke, he defined that, “it as an accountability invite for a
reason disgusting to high-quality ethics. If it is unrighteous or wholly
improper they cannot be called vyavaharik or legal debts. It may be that the
debts incurred by the father for defending himself against criminal action against
others or defending himself in an action brought by others are legal in several
circumstances. If a debt was incurred to defend the rights of the family and to
safeguard its interests, it is certainly legal in nature. If a debt is not
tainted with illegality at its inception it may be binding on the son. The son
may unable to claim immunity from the debts in such cases. But, where the
father's conduct which prompted the incurring of the debt, is utterly repugnant
to good morals or is grossly unjust or flagrantly dishonest, then certainly the
son can claim immunity from its liability.
In a decision of a Full Bench in Bombay
High Court it was held that Impractical debt against the law, untruthful or
unethical debt. The son does not have to prove the father's criminal liability
to sue for immunity. Therefore, where a person owns property, which he is not
entitled to acquire, disposes of the property and removes the faithful owner of
the property, his behavior is dishonest and the son is not liable to give Such
behavior by Lord Dunedin of the Privy Council also leads to the fact that
predecessor debts were actually defined as a predecessor as well as over time
i.e. not part of the transaction. So two circumstances are required:
1. The sum unpaid must be earlier in
time and
2. The amount overdue must be prior in
fact.
A son can sue for imperviousness only
when the debt at his core was unethical because the money was obtained from the
commission of the crime; but where the father came legally with money, but then
abused them embezzle. This corresponds only to the narrative of impractical
debt in the previous case. If the initially was not unethical, i.e. If there
was no crooked opening or it was based on scam, that money owing cannot be
classified as unjust and that debt pleasing son cannot be released. An external
event, i.e., abuse will not change the scenery of the arrears later. The vices
must be innate.
Morally wrong debts are also
committed to keeping a prostitute. Thus, it is illegal to bribe a granddaughter
or a Hindu woman to espouse or gamble with one of their sons. The result of the
most brutal actions with those who were initially convicted of evil is
impractical. The father has power to avoid past debts.
The knowledgeable adjudicator keen away
to a judicial point of view, it did indeed change the doctrine contained in the
novel text in some respects. According to the current law, the son’s obligation
is not an existing personal obligation, regardless of whether he has purchased
any property or not, it constitutes a limited obligation to the son’s share of
assets or rights and interests in the common family property the same.
Regardless of whether the son is
mature or juvenile, if the guardian is lively or lifeless, he has a commitment.
If the debit is constricted by the father and is not depraved or unreligious,
the son can always be held responsible for such debts in the common property
owner’s property.
The father can transfer the property
of the common family to pay his individual amount overdue and the son can face
the arrears only if the debt is corrupted. This means that even the father can
do this not directly. The duty of the son's piety to his debt of father must be
paid, whether the father is alive or not alive. During the father's lifetime, it
is wish of the father that he can repay the property of the united family,
including the son's interest and can
also pay previous claims arising from the needs or interests of the family (if
it is immoral, the debt cannot be found). Parents cannot do this after filing
for separation.[2]
Laws Related to Doctrine of Pious
Obligation.
-
The
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The Hindu Succession Amendment Act of
2005 was passed by Parliament to address the unequal treatment of daughters in
Joint Hindu families, granting them equal rights to sons. It was based on
recommendations from the 174th Law Commission report on Women’s Rights in
Property under Hindu law, which advocated for gender equality in inheritance
laws.
Following the enactment of the Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, courts are not permitted to enforce the pious
obligation doctrine to hold sons, grandsons, or great-grandsons liable for
their father's, grandfather's, or great-grandfather's debts.
Daughter’s Right to Property Under
Hindu Succession Act
Traditionally, ancient Hindu society
was patriarchal, restricting women from owning property in their own names. Even
if a woman earned property, it was controlled by her father, husband, or son.
The Hindu Succession Act of 1956
continued this system, granting daughters rights in their father's
self-acquired property but not in coparcenary property, as they were not
recognized as coparceners in joint Hindu families.
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act
of 2005 aimed to rectify this by granting daughters of coparceners equal rights
in coparcenary property as sons.
Its objective was to challenge the
patriarchal mindset, remove gender discriminatory provisions, and provide
gender equality in matters of inheritance.
While the amendment addressed some
issues, there were still ambiguities in its interpretation, leading to
challenges in fully implementing its intentions.
The Issues and Irregularities that
Caused the Abolishment of the Doctrine of Pious Obligation.
The doctrine of pious obligation was
abolished after the 2005 amendment to address existing irregularities.
An issue arose when the Karnataka
High Court interpreted the doctrine in the case of Padminibai v. Arvind
Purandhar Murabatte (1987) before the amendment. Following the court's reasoning
in that case, it could be argued that a daughter would now be liable for her
deceased father's debts if she inherits a share in the Mitakshara Coparcenary
by birth.
The concept of reunion and other
aspects of Mitakshara coparcenary led to further irregularities, as it only
included the father's sons, brothers, nephews, and paternal uncles, excluding
women entirely.
If the Karnataka High Court's
reasoning were to be extended to allow daughters, sisters, or nieces to
participate in the reunion as coparceners, it would disrupt the uncodified law.
Due to such persistent
irregularities, the need for a change in the doctrine of Pious Obligation
became unavoidable, leading to its abrogation through the 2005 amendment.[3]
Related Case laws: -
1.
Hemraj V/s. Khemchand(1943): -
In this case, the Privy Council studies
the temperament of the Avyavaharika debt that, the similar with allusion to the
occasion when it instigate. Hemraj and Danpal are orders shared between the two
brothers apart from Hemraj. It can be expected that Danpal will file a notice
within 7 days after receiving the court order; otherwise he will be liable for
the interest collected. Danpal unloaded the bills until the time was up. Hemraj
then sued Danpal and ordered Danpal about the amount.
Danpal waiting plead of this decree Danpal
was died. In the implementation actions against the children of Danpal, they objection
about the donation which, it had been made through “misconduct and stupidity”
of him. So they were not responsible for paying their share of the familial
property.
Amounts outstanding which are not bound
to set free: under Smrities.
-
It
incurred wasteful gifted for drinking
-
It
acquire for lust
-
betting
-
not
paid fines
-
due
shulka
-
commerce
shulka
-
It
by for being guarantee
Debts judicially held to be
Avyavaharika.
-
Render
the father for Criminal breach of trust (Sec- 409 of I.P.C.)
-
Father
receiving money by of fact or by cheating (Sec- 415 of I.P.C.)
-
Liability
arise out of crime of theft up a false will.
-
Cost
of defending a suit by setting.
-
Debt
incurred to provide one’s concubine with misappropriation.
-
Liability
arising out of funds for the expenses of her granddaughter’s marriage.
-
Subscription
for the conduction of lottery.
-
Monetary
fine imposed by a court for committing crime.
2.
Keshav Nandan Sahay Vs. The Bank of Bihar: -
In this case, the son is said to be
responsible for the preparation debt borne by the father. The principle of
piety in the pie constitution does not apply to women. Therefore, it cannot
hold creditors accountable for boys. In the area of ??quarantine between the
co-conspirator and her son, the woman was given a portion of her rights, and
she could not be considered the sole representative of the husband. This
doctrine is based on ancient Hindu scriptures, and does not mention women in
the category of boys, and there is no legal act to include this doctrine.[4]
Socio-Legal Impact of Doctrine of
Pious Obligation:
The socio-legal impact of the
teaching of pious duty is at odds with the current jurisprudential trends in
the field of exclusive jurisprudence. The existing Hindu law has been altered
by several laws in favor of absolute ownership of Hindu women; it cannot be
explained or reasoned that by abolishing limited ownership of women, the status
of children in joint family property can be removed from the teaching of pious
duty. In this regard, the provisions of pious duty must be changed to absolute
duty and made similar to the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, as has been the
case with the impact of the Chandersen judgment of the Supreme Court.
Burden of Proof of the Debt:
The obligation on son to pay off
their father’s personal debts is a religious obligation and on the off chance
that they need to wriggle out of it? They can do as such just if the debts are polluted
the son also need to show that loan boss had the notice or information that the
debts was corrupted.
The Apex Court in Luhar Marit Lal
Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal, depending upon the judgments of the Privy
Council alluded to (supra), articulated the principles thus: “the sons who
challenge the alienations made by the father need to demonstrate that the
precursor debts? were immoral as well as that the purchasers had seen that they
were so corrupted.”
Ramasamayyan v. VirasamiAyyar ((1898)
I.L.R. 21 Mad. 222) Indeed, even where the home loan is not for legal necessity
or for an installment of precursor debt, the lender can, in the execution of a
home loan declare for the acknowledgment of a debt which the father is
personally subject to reimburse, sell the estate without getting a personal
pronouncement against him. After the sale has occurred, the son is bound by the
sale, unless he shows that the debt was non-existent or was corrupted with
immorality or illegality [5]
Conclusion:
-
“The doctrine of pious, under which sons are held accountable for paying the
responsibility of their father, is based exclusively on spiritual ideology; the
theory basically shows that fathers' amount outstanding must be practical. If
debt is not practical or impractical, this principle cannot be applied.” The
principle of the son's task for debts from the father may soon be reused. Both of these principles specify holy
beliefs, but in some cases, the son is legally responsible for repaying and
repaying debts for the decent intention of the father's life. In this regard,
the son is only in charge for the extent of their attention in the ordinary
family property, and therefore does not bear personal dependability for this
type of payment.
However,
the field of responsibilities does not include heirs, widows or daughters, so
there is a big gap in Hindu law in the neutral gender system of the family.
Given that they now enjoy equal rights to family property, they still need to be
reformed like men as heir. Since the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, promulgated
in 2005, no court will accept any right to take action beside of a son,
grandson or grandson to improve the debts of the father, grandfather or great-grandson.
Only on the basis of the duty of piety under Hindu law, such sons, grandsons or
great-grandsons can pay any such debts. The law of obligation refers to a
person's legal duty to do something. This legal duty arises in situations where
a person, or a group of people, is required to take a particular course of action
under the law. These kinds of obligations are binding ties that are covered by
legal terms and can be enforced by a court. The obligation is limited to lawful
and moral debts. Debts incurred for immoral or illegal purposes (such as
gambling or unethical behavior) are excluded, and descendants are not held
responsible for their repayment. Historically, creditors could claim repayment
from joint family property owned by the descendants under the Hindu Undivided
Family (HUF) system. However, the personal property of descendants was
protected unless it had been inherited. The liability was restricted to the
extent of the descendants’ interest in the joint family property.[6]
References: -
1. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/sons_p.htm)
2. https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/understanding-the-concept-of-pious-obligation-under-the-hindu-law/117717
3. https://www.lawnotes.co.in/2019/09/family-law-iidoctrine-of-pious.html
4. https://advocatetanmoy.com/2018/12/20/the-doctrine-of-pious-obligation
5. Family Law, by Peeyushi Diwan Paras
Diwan (Author), publication- Allahabad Law Agency.
HINDU LAW (Family Law - I) - Dr. S.R.Myneni (Author) Asia
Law House publication (2018).
[2]. https://www.shareyouressays.com/knowledge/understanding-the-concept-of-pious-obligation-under-the-hindu-law/117717