Doctrine of Pious Obligation

By: Ms Manan Dardi

Email id: manan.dardi@vips.edu
Introduction

• Joint families under Hindu Law are not limited to succession and a coparcenary
system. The succeeding generation is also expected of some obligations, one of them
being from the sons for the repayment of debts incurred by their father during his
lifetime. Pious meaning religious, and under the doctrine of pious obligation, an
expectation is casted on a son to repay his father’s loan and debts from the part of the
ancestral property he holds under a religious duty towards his religion. However, this
duty ceases to exist when the debts are avyavaharika, i.e. incurred for immoral or
illegal purposes
Cont…
• In the case of ‘Sidheshwar Mukherjee vs. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh’, Supreme Court stated
that, the doctrine finds its origin in the historical smritis. It was held that non-payment of debts was
a positive sin and thus to save the father from the consequences of such a sin in the afterlife, it was a
son’s duty to pay off the debts. However, under law, the position has been modified to an extent where a
son is liable to pay off the debts only confining to the interest in the coparcenary property he holds.

• He cannot be otherwise made personally liable. Also, unlike the previous distribution where the son was
liable to pay off the whole debt and the grandsn and great-grandson only the principal amount, now all
three generations are equally obligated to pay off the principal amount and interests.
Avyavaharik Debts
• An immoral or illegal that is repugnant to good morals.
• It includes all debts which the court regards as inequitable or unjust to make the
son liable.
• According to Hindu texts the son are not compellable to pay debts incurred for
a. losses at play,
b. alcoholic drinks,
c. promises without consideration,
d. promises made out of lust etc.
e. suretyship, or
f. fines of bribes
Liability Extends to Great Grand Son
• Extent of the liability of Son, Son’s Son and Son’s Son’s Son under the
Hindu Law-

1. Son was required to pay the debt of father with interest accrued thereon

2. The grandson was liable to pay only the principal amount.

3. The great grandson was required to pay only to the extent to the joint
family property in his hand.
Liability not personal
• The liability of the son is to pay the debt of the father and grandfather is not a personal
liability but it is a liability that extends to the undivided interest in the coparcenary
property.

• It cannot and does not bind the separate property of the sons these debts bind only the
undivided share of the son in the coparcenary property.

• Where the debts were contracted after the son had separated himself by a partition the
shares obtained at the time of partition is not liable for the payment of father’s debts.
Shift in the approach of Doctrine of Pious
Obligation

• Rights of the creditors to have their money back.

• Burden proof is on the son to prove not only that debt was for
immoral, illegal or improper purposes, but also that the creditor or
purchaser had knowledge of the fact that it was for such purposes or
was avyavaharik.
Antecedent Debt

• A Karta cannot sell or mortgage the joint property unless there is a

legal necessity, or for the benefit of the estate, or there are religious
obligations. Antecedent Debts are one such exception coming under
the head of legal necessity. Antecedent Debts refers to the legal
obligation prior to the time in question about paying off one. 
Father’s power to alienate property for an
antecedent debt
• Father can alienate property for an antecedent debt i.e. sale of the properties is
undertaken to pay the antecedent debts of the father, it is valid and permissible, even to
the extent of the whole of the estate.

• The coparcener can neither prevent the father from effecting such an alienation, nor can
they obtain an injunction restraining him from doing so.

• The only remedy that they have is to ask for a partition and demarcation of their shares.

• If they separate under a partition, then their share cannot be touched by the father to
repay his own debts.
Burden of Proof

• Alienee

• Where the sons refute the stand of the alienee and

impeach the alienation, they then, have to prove that
the debt was for an immoral aspect, and alienee had
notice of it.
Abolition of pious obligation of son
to pay debt of father
• After the commencement of the 2005 ac, no court shall recognize any
right to proceed against a son, grandson, or great grandson for the
recovery of any debt dur from his father, grandfather or great
grandfather solely on the ground of the pious obligation under the
Hindu Law.

• Prospective ruling.
THANK YOU