The Doctrine of Pious Obligation is that doctrine under which sons are made liable to discharge father’s debts. It is solely religious. It only refers to vyavaharika debt i.e., debts conducted for legal purposes only, and excludes avyavaharika debts i.e. debts taken for immoral and unethical purposes. There are certain questions about the relevance of the doctrine of pious obligation under Hindu Law. This is because the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 led to the abrogation of the doctrine. To understand its importance today, it is required to refer to the meaning of the doctrine of pious obligation, its origin and historical background, and an analysis of the legal position of the doctrine prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and post the amendment

Nyaay Shastra

English

Humanities Commons

           Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 1  The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation And Its Relevance Today Sanjana Rudra, Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore.*  Abstract  The Doctrine of Pious Obligation is that doctrine under which sons are made liable to discharge father’s debts. It is solely religious. It only refers to vyavaharika debt i.e., debts conducted for legal purposes only, and excludes avyavaharika debts i.e. debts taken for immoral and unethical purposes. There are certain questions about the relevance of the doctrine of pious obligation under Hindu Law. This is because the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 led to the abrogation of the doctrine. To understand its importance today, it is required to refer to the meaning of the doctrine of pious obligation, its origin and historical background, and an analysis of the legal position of the doctrine prior to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and post the amendment.            * She is a third year, B.A. LL.B. student at Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore.             Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 2   I. The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation Debts occupy a very important place in the Hindu system of law. Hindu sages have repeatedly enjoined that one must pay one’s debts. If a Hindu dies indebted, his sons must repay his debts. This is considered to be the religious or pious duty of sons of discharging their father from the sin of his debts.1 The doctrine of pious obligation states that a son is liable to pay the debts of his father or his grandfather or his great grandfather after their death unless the debt incurred was for an immoral or illegal purpose.2 This doctrine has created a lot of confusion and controversial decisions in the past due to which it was abrogated post the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005.3 Hindu law states that when a Hindu dies and his soul is indebted, he may have to face evil consequences. Therefore, the son of such a person has the responsibility to free the soul of his father from indebtness.4 Thus, the sole object of the doctrine of Pious Obligation is to confer the spiritual benefit upon the deceased and not for the benefit of the creditor.5 II. Historical Background To understand the origin of the doctrine of Pious Obligation, reference must be made to Hindu religious books and the sayings of Hindu jurists. As laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh6, the doctrine finds its origin in the historical smiritis. Yajnavalkya says that “if the father is dead or gone abroad or smitten with trouble, his debt should be paid by his sons and grandsons; if on denial, it is proved by witnesses.”7   1 Dr. Paras Diwan and Peeyushi Diwan, Modern Hindu Law (Codified and Uncodified) 347 (Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad, 2019). 2 K.M. Raghothaman v. P. Abraham, AIR 1971 Ker 154. 3 Prakhar Gupta, “An Appraisal on Doctrine of Pious Obligation & Its Competent Responsibility upon Daughters” 3 IJLSI 1100 (2021). 4 Doctrine of Pious Obligation in Hindu Law, available at: https://lawcorner.in/doctrine-of-pious-obligation-in-hindu-law/ (Last Modified December 08, 2021).  5 Amrit Lal v. Jayanti Lal, AIR 1960 SC 964. 6 AIR 1953 SC 487. 7 Yajnavalkaya, 2, 50.             Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 3    As said by Brihaspati, “He who, having received a sum lent or the like, does not repay it to the owner, will be born hereafter in his creditor’s house, a slave, a servant, a woman, or a quadruped.”8 Narada says that “When a devotee, or a man who maintained a sacrificial fire, dies without having discharged his debt, the whole merit of his devotions, or his perpetual fire belongs to his creditors.”9  According to Indian legal literature or most practices seen in the earlier era, a son was desired because of the reasons that he would pay the debts spiritual and worldly of his father.  Originally the emphasis on the payments of debts was so strong that according to the dictates of the Dharmashastra, if a man has to pay both his and his father’s debts, he must pay the latter first, and as amongst the father’s and grandfather’s, the grandfather’s debts should be paid first.10 III. Types of Debts Vyavaharika Debt means debts which are due. They are not immoral, illegal, and are not opposed to law and public policy. Sons are liable to pay debts such as telephone bills, or torts committed by him concerning profits, debts were contracted for defending himself in a lawsuit, debts contracted for conducting business – such debts shall be binding upon sons.11 Avyavaharik Debt means debt incurred which is not in the normal course of the business. Mayne had categorized avyavaharik debts as those due for lust, gambling, spirituous liquour, unpaid fines, and commercial debts.12 Now, the term avyavaharik debt refers to those debts due for unlawful and immoral purposes. Debts due for activities that are illegal fall under this head. Debts for immoral purposes include debts such as those incurred for prostitution.  8 Digest 1, 229. 9 Narada Smriti, 1, 9.  10 Pr. N. Sm. Chockalingam v. Official Assignee of Madras, (1940) 2 MLJ 621 11 The Doctrine of Pious Obligation and its relevance under the Hindu Law in the present time, available at: https://www.aequivic.in/post/aijacla-the-doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-its-relevance-under-the-hindu-law-in-the-present-time (Last Modified February 09, 2021). 12 Mayne, 398.            Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 4   IV. Critical Analysis Of Legal Framework  A. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005  The Hindu Succession Amendment Act was enacted by the Parliament in 2005. It served to rectify the status of daughters in the Joint Hindu family by granting them equal rights as that of sons. The Amendment Act was based upon the recommendations of the 174th Law Commission report on Women’s Right in Property under Hindu law. This report advocated for the changes to be brought in the code to ensure equal treatment of both the genders.13 After the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, no court shall recognize 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 the Hindu law, of such son, grandson or great-grandson to discharge any such debt.14 B. Daughter’s Right To Property Under Hindu Succession Act Due to the patriarchal nature of ancient Hindu society, women were never allowed to hold property under their names. Even if property was earned by a female, she couldn’t enjoy it herself as it would be under the control of her father, her husband or her son. After the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, this system continued to operate. It recognized the daughter’s right in inheriting father’s self-acquired property but not the coparcenary property as she was not recognized as a coparcenary in the Joint Hindu family.15 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 provided the daughters of a coparcener with the same rights in the coparcenary property as the son. The objective behind the amendment was to change the patriarchal mindset prevalent in society, to remove gender discriminatory provisions in the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and to provide equal status to the son and the daughter of  13 A Critical Analysis of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-analysis-hindu-succession-amendment-act-2005/ (Last Modified May 20, 2020).  14 The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act of 1956). 15 Prakhar Gupta, “An Appraisal on Doctrine of Pious Obligation & Its Competent Responsibility upon Daughters” 3 IJLSI 1104 (2021).            Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 5    a Hindu in matters relating to inheritance to coparcenary property.16 While this amendment brought changes in recognizing the daughter’s rights, however, there were several loopholes in the interpretation of the amendment.   C. Issues And Irregularities That Caused The Abolishment Of The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation The doctrine of pious obligation was abrogated post the 2005 amendment to remove all the irregularities. An issue arose when the Karnataka High Court interpreted the doctrine prior to the amendment in the case of Padminibai v. Arvind Purandhar Murabatte.17By following the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court in the above case, it can be opined that a daughter would now be liable for the disposal of debts incurred by her deceased father if she gets a share by birth in the Mitakshara Coparcenary.  Reunion and other aspects of Mitakshara coparcenary also created a lot of irregularities as only father’s sons, his brothers, his nephews and paternal uncles would be a part of it and women were totally excluded. If we again follow the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court, it will result in tampering the uncodified law if the daughter (or sister or niece) becomes eligible to participate in reunion as coparceners. Because of such persisting irregularities, need for a change in doctrine of Pious Obligation was inevitable and so an Amendment in 2005 finally decided to abrogate the same.18 D. Judicial Pronouncements  In the case of Muttayan Chettiar v. Sangili Vira Pandia Chinnatambiar19 the court declared the doctrine as not a mere religious one, but a legal one too. It was argued that such legal duty arises as a corollary to the right of a son in the ancestral property.    16 Daughter’s Right to Property: an in-depth study explained with landmark judgements, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/daughters-right-property-depth-study-explained-landmark-judgements/#The_historical_Hindu_Succession_Amendment_Act_2005 (Last Modified May 01, 2021). 17 AIR 1989 Kant 120. 18 Prakhar Gupta, “An Appraisal on Doctrine of Pious Obligation & Its Competent Responsibility upon Daughters” 3 IJLSI 1102 (2021). 19 AIR 1906 Mad 1.            Volume II Issue II                                                                                      NYAAYSHASTRA LAW REVIEW | ISSN: 2582-8479    pg. 6   The father’s superior interest in the property over the son converts the pious duty into a legal one onto the son who succeeds to such property.20  The landmark judgment of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors.21 established that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 will have a retrospective effect. The daughter is liable in same manner as son under section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.  In the case of Somasundaran v. Narasimhachariar22 it was held that the conversion of the father or the son from Hinduism to any other faith would not operate to rid the son from his pious obligation with respect to the debt that has been incurred prior to the conversion of the father.  V. Conclusion  Legal heirs are not liable to satisfy any debts based on pious obligation due to the abolition of the doctrine. This provision will not be applicable if a legal heir has expressed his/her intent to fulfil the obligation. Debts provided prior to the 2005 amendment are not considered to be governed under its purview; those are to be left alone and can be enforced against the legal heirs. It has to be highlighted that post 2005 Amendment, daughters are provided the same rights as a son in inheritance and liabilities but due to the doctrine’s abolition no such liability exists.23  20 Doctrine of Pious Obligation and Antecedent Debts: A son’s Duty to pay off his father’s debts, available at https://lexpeeps.in/doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-antecedent-debts-a-sons-duty-to-pay-off-his-fathers-debts/ (Last Modified March 30, 2020).  21 (2020) 9 SCC 1. 22 48 LW 452. 23 Prakhar Gupta, “An Appraisal on Doctrine of Pious Obligation & Its Competent Responsibility upon Daughters” 3 IJLSI 1106 (2021). 

The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation And Its Relevance Today

https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:46420/CONTENT/the-doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-its-relevance-today.pdf/

The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation And Its Relevance Today

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Humanities Commons