In the Hindu legal system, literature and society consider repayment of debt a very important Act. It plays an important role at the time of death. In Hindu mythology, it is considered that if a person dies without repaying his debt, then he will be born as a servant or slave in the house of his creditor. Hindu scholars and sages say that if a Hindu died without repaying his debt, then it is the duty of his son to repay the debt and discharge his father from the sin of debt. This mythology gave birth to pious obligation. 'Pious' means religious or moral and 'Obligation' means duty.

The doctrine of pious obligation is the special type of liability on the son to pay back his father's debt. In general terms son, grandson and great-grandson are liable to repay the debt of their father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. So we can say that the sole purpose of this doctrine is to discharge the father from the sin of non-payment of debt. When we talk about the debt the son is liable to pay only the Vyavharika (legally and morally obtained) debts if the debt is an Avyavharika (illegally and immorally) obtained then the son will not be liable to pay back the debt. Son can repay the debt of his father from the ancestral property which he holds.

The main motive behind this obligation is that son succeeding certain rights and property and benefits from these rights and property then why should he not be liable for the repayment of the debt? It is the religious obligation of the male descendants to pay back the debt of their ancestors. As well as religious obligation this doctrine has some statutory perspectives also. Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narayan was the first case related to the doctrine of pious obligation in this case court said that the doctrine of pious obligation has its root in the smritis and it is the duty of a son to repay the Vyavharika debt of his father[1].

Family Law representing an indispensable piece of the life of the person takes a firm stand in the general public, India has a weird display of individual laws, which owe their assorted and twisted variety of customs and traditions to the beginning, where standards and the majority of substantive law existed. The individual laws assume an imperative part in representing the community of the people, the uniqueness of Indian family law remains common for all the people in the country and has a consistency in application.

It covers a colossal zone of local relations, for example, marriage, wedding cures, the authenticity of youngsters, care, guardianship, reception, intestate and testamentary progression, and so forth which impulse a sheer majority over laws in India. India, a country centuries known for its secularism has been practicing various religions which are accepted by all the people and followed by different sections, to give these religions a legal enforcement different legislations and enactments have been formulated. In that notion Hindu religion which is exclusively practiced in India and is well known for its time-old customs and traditions got its recognition post-Vedic period by legal enforcement into "Hindu Law".

Diversified laws dealing with marriage, inheritance, divorce, adoption, succession, maintenance, and custody were also clearly dealt with in Hindu law, thus traditionally derived Hindu law through its customs, text, principles, and doctrines emerged into a personal law which shaped the practice of one particular community. Derived from the frameworks of renowned people of the Vedic age, Smiritis Vedic descriptions like Dharmasastra based on traditional institutions and customs became time immemorial, gaining legal enforcement and transformed into contemporary customary laws comprising both substantive and procedural frameworks. Sources of law derived two main schools of thought for their implementation and application of laws, as ancient people emphasized the importance of all the aspects of life the doctrines and principles were classified into two schools Mitakshara and Dayabhaga, these schools of Hindu Law emerged with the rise of the period of commentaries and digests which are one of the sources of Hindu law.

The power of the old writings gave rise to classified principles of Hindu law which initially was connected to the entire of India yet in this way it isolated into two schools and some sub-schools. These schools exclusively deal with Hindu succession and inheritance of property and the right and ownership, which this study tries to discuss from different dimensions.

Historical Background
The word "pious" refers to something sacred or religious. "Pious responsibility" refers "to a Hindu man's obligation to his religion as a result of his strong dedication to it". According to Hindu law, "anyone receives a money lent or the like and does not restore it to the owner will be born a slave, a servant, a woman, or a quadruped hereafter in his creditor's house." It is a noble, pious, and sacred responsibility for a son to pay off or discharge his father's debts and most importantly, devout, according to Hindu scriptures.

This religious obligation is imposed on a Hindu's son, as well as his son's son and son's son's son, on the idea that all three are born coparceners with others. Non-payment of debts is a sin (paap), and anybody who dies with debts would be unable to enter paradise (Swarg). The "Putra", i.e., "the son, grandson, and great-grandson, releases his parted grandfather of the burden and allows him to reach heaven, letting him obtain Moksha, by paying off such commitments". The idea known as "The Doctrine of Pious Obligation" underpins a son's duty or obligation to repay a deceased ancestor's debts.

This criterion, however, only applies to loans that are not avyavaharika. Reading what Hindu religious books and Hindu jurists have to say on the concept of Pious Obligation, with a focus on what history has to say about it, will be fascinating. "If the father is deceased, gone abroad, or in difficulties," Yajnavalkya writes, "his due shall be paid by his sons and grandsons; if on denial, it is confirmed by witnesses."

"When a devotee, or a guy who kept a sacrificial fire, dies without having paid his debt, the entire merit of his devotions, or his continuous fire, belongs to his creditors,5 " Narada states again. "The son born should, without regard for his own self-interest, diligently liberate his father from debts so that he (father) may not go to hell", says another Narada saying. According to Hindu jurists, the repercussions of non-payment of debt are not simply transitory; a debtor's indebtedness follows him into the next life.

"Whoever receives a money lent or the like and does not restore it to the owner will be born hereafter in his creditor's house, a slave, a servant, a woman, or a quadruped" Brihaspati says. According to Indian law literature and most traditional traditions from the past, a son is wanted because he will settle his father's spiritual and material debts.

Because the religious obligation of the son is based on religious authority, the son is not obligated to pay his father's irreligious debts for the following reasons:

1. Firstly, religious authorities exempt the son from any need to pay the father's irreligious debts, just as religious authorities require sons to pay their father's debts.
    
2. Second, holding the son responsible for an irreligious debt would be a contribution to and augmentation of the father's irreligious deeds . When it is stated that "repaying a father's debts is a religious obligation of a son and his descendants, the son is obligated to pay both the principal and interest, whereas the grandson is only obligated to pay the principal amount, and the great-grandson is only obligated to pay to the extent that he held joint family property".
   
   He was not personally accountable, despite the fact that his son and grandson were. The Privy Council stated in the case of "Sat Narain v Rai Bahadur Sri Kishan Das" that "the concept of pious responsibility was established on the pious obligation of the sons to pay off their father's obligations, rather than the need to safeguard third parties". Originally, the focus on debt payments was so strong that "if a man had to pay both his and his father's obligations, he had to pay the latter first, and if he had to pay both his and his grandfather's debts, he had to pay the grandfather's first".

What Is Pious Obligation?

Doctrine of Pious Obligation means a son's moral and religious duty to repay the debts of his deceased or debt-ridden father, grandfather, or great-grandfather. The term "pious" refers to the religious and moral nature of this duty, emphasising the belief that by discharging these debts, the son can ensure the spiritual salvation of his ancestors.

According to this doctrine, the obligation extends not only to the son but also to the grandson and great-grandson, as all of them are considered coparceners by virtue of their birth in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The son's liability is limited to the principal amount of the debt and not the interest.

While not codified in legislation, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation has been upheld and interpreted through various key judgments by courts, which continue to shape the legal principles surrounding Hindu Undivided Families and their obligations in repaying ancestral debts.

Scope Of Doctrine Of Pious Obligation

Indeed, under the Doctrine of Pious Obligation in Hindu law, the extent of liability for the debts owed by the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather is limited to the principal amount, not the interest on the debt. This means that the descendants are responsible for repaying the original borrowed amount but are not obliged to pay any interest that may have accumulated over time.

Before the British Era, the son and the grandson were personally liable to pay the debts of their ancestors. However, the liability of the great-grandson was limited to his share in the joint family estate. This means that if the great-grandson's personal property was not sufficient to cover the debt, he was not held personally responsible for the remaining amount owed.[1]

During the British Era, there was a change in the law and the liability of the son, grandson and great-grandson was further limited. All three were held liable only up to their respective shares in the joint family estate. Even if a son possessed personal property, he was not obligated to use it to repay his father's debts, as the liability was confined to the joint family property.

Pious Obligation Under Modern Hindu Law

The Doctrine of Pious Obligation has received legal recognition through numerous Supreme Court and Privy Council judgments. It is not merely a religious, moral duty but a necessary consequence of a son's right to his father's property. The son's liability to pay his father's debts is linked to his interest in the ancestral property, making it a counterbalance to his rights[2].

The doctrine is not a gratuitous obligation based on religious law or aimed at protecting third parties. Rather, it is a logical extension of the interest acquired by a son through birth. All debts incurred by the father as the Karta (manager) of the family make the sons liable to pay them off on his behalf, limited to the interest they hold in the coparcenary property.

In older interpretations, the obligation to repay debts usually arose after the father's demise or incapacity. However, modern Hindu law has expanded this obligation to the father's lifetime. If the father uses the son's property to pay off family debts, the son cannot question him. Nonetheless, a son's liability is limited to the extent of his share in the coparcenary property under modern Hindu law, unlike the older doctrine.

Initially, the obligation of a son was personal and extended to the principal and interest. However, in contemporary Hindu law, all three (son, grandson, and great-grandson) are equally liable for the debts' principal and accrued interest. This change has been brought about to ensure uniform liability among the descendants.

Types Of Liabilities

In Hindu law, debts can be categorised into two main types: Vyavaharika and Avyavaharika.

Vyavaharika debts are those for which a father may alienate the family lands. These debts are not immoral, illegal, or against the law and public policy. They are typically incurred to promote the family's growth or seek profits rather than being linked to reckless or extravagant pursuits. Examples of Vyavaharika debts include telephone bills, lawsuit costs, business debts, and mesne profits. Sons are liable to pay such debts of their fathers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that sons are responsible for debts contracted by the father in his capacity as the karta (manager) of the joint family. They are also liable for debts contracted jointly with the father for his personal benefit, to the extent of their share in the joint family property.

On the other hand, Avyavaharika debts are those incurred for purposes considered repugnant to good morals. Sons are not obligated to repay such debts incurred by the father due to immoral activities such as keeping a concubine, gambling, bribing, or engaging in any other immoral pursuits[3].

To summarise the doctrine of pious obligation, a son is liable to pay the debts if:

1. The debts were of a Vyavaharika nature.
2. The debts were contracted when the coparcenary (joint family) was intact.
3. The debt was contracted before partition, but the liability to pay arose after partition.

After the partition of the joint family property, the son's share becomes his personal property and he cannot be held responsible for the debts incurred by the father thereafter.

If a son wishes to contest the nature of the debts incurred by the father and seek immunity from repayment, the burden of proving that the debts are Avyavaharika lies on the son. To establish the immoral nature of the debt, it should be demonstrated that the actions leading to the incurring of the debt were immoral.

For instance, if a father lawfully acquired money but later misappropriated it, the original debt would be considered Vyavaharika, as the initial contracting of the debt was not tainted.

Avyavaharik Debts

Colebrooke defined it as a liability incurred for a cause repugnant to good morals. If it is unrighteous or wholly improper they cannot be called vyavaharika 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 not be able to claim immunity from the debts in such cases. But, where his father's conduct which prompted the incurring of the debt, is utterly repugnant to good morals or dishonest, then certainly he can claim immunity from its liability.

Doctrine Of Pious Obligation And Women

Hindu religious customary regulations, dating back to the Vedic period, dealt explicitly with the idea of legal duty for debt repayment and the premise of minimal morality. The distinct concept of Pious Requirement in ancient Indian literature grew as "a legal right from a moral obligation, and therefore the study of Vedic teachings in Hindu law received legal codified acknowledgment to Pious Obligation theory via contemporary achievements". Sons were believed to meet the pious duty procedure applicable for spiritual as well as secular debts, including monetary debts, as a result of Mitakshara's school of thought.

According to the "Precept of Pious Obligation", children have an ethical obligation to pay off and liberate their father's debts, and failing to do so is a transgression and a crime. This responsibility or commitment of a child to repay an absent father's obligations is founded on a distinct concept known as "The Doctrine of Pious Obligation."

As a result, a Hindu beneficiary is obligated to repay the responsibilities he received from the deceased, regardless of whether they were properly acquired or gained through an indecent or unlawful purpose. Whether the children are minors or adults, and whether the father is alive or dead, the responsibility persists. The father's obligation lasts his entire life and continues as long as he is subject.[4]

The Doctrine of Pious Obligation, as found in ancient commentaries and jurists' views, reflects gender bias and a patriarchal mindset. In traditional Hindu society, no obligation was placed on female descendants to discharge the debts of their forefathers. Women were often perceived as incapable of taking on such responsibilities and were considered extensions of a man's property and estate.

Eminent Hindu jurists like Narada and Katayayana mentioned that in cases where a man died without a son or estate, his wife would become his "sole property," and the man who "enjoys the wife" would hold the liability to pay off the debt.

Hindu texts made no mention of daughters or any female descendants having any liability towards the repayment of debts of their forefathers. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 also maintained this gender bias, discussing only the pious obligation of sons.

However, the Hindu Succession Act of 2005 brought significant changes by making daughters coparceners in their father's property, granting them the same benefits and liabilities as sons. This theoretically assigns daughters a moral obligation to pay off their father's debts as coparceners. Yet, the application of this change has faced limitations in some court cases. For instance, in situations where females inherit a share in ancestral property, courts have still held that only sons would be liable to pay off the debts of the deceased male karta.

Nevertheless, it is important to note that with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act of 2005, the traditional Doctrine of Pious Obligation has effectively been abolished (subject to certain exceptions). Therefore, discussions on how the improved legal status of women under the new Act would impact the doctrine are now obsolete.

Effect Of Partition Of Joint Family Property

The cases of Ram Saran v. Bhagwan and V.D. Deshpande v. S.K.D. Kulkarni illustrates the principles related to the Doctrine of Pious Obligation and its application concerning post-partition debt and debts incurred for the joint family's benefit.

Ram Saran v. Bhagwan: In this case, it was held that the liability of the son does not arise for any debts incurred by the father after the partition of the joint family property. This means that if the joint family property is partitioned and the father incurs debts afterward, the sons or descendants are not held responsible for repaying those post-partition debts. However, the liability for pre-partition debts continues even after the partition, subject to certain conditions.

V.D. Deshpande v. S.K.D. Kulkarni[5]: In this case, the father borrowed a loan from the government to improve joint family lands. After the partition of the joint family property, no specific provision was made for the repayment of this debt. The court held that the joint family property that came into the hands of the sons after the partition would remain liable for the payment of the loan.

Despite the father being the Karta (manager) and the loan being taken for the benefit of the entire joint family, only the sons were held liable under the Doctrine of Pious Obligation. This indicates that the obligation to repay certain debts may still fall on the descendants, even if the loan was taken for the joint family's welfare and the father was the Karta.

Effect Of Conversion Of Father

In the event of the father or the son converting from Hinduism to another faith, the son's pious obligation with respect to debts incurred before the conversion is not relieved. The obligation to repay such debts remains even after the conversion.

Issues And Irregularities Causing Abolishment Of Pious Obligation
Following the 2005 revision to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, the necessity to abolish the concept of Pious Obligation emerged. Males were given complete ownership rights under Hindu law. It didn't explain why only sons were responsible for repaying the father's debt, and why a woman's capacity to inherit the estate was limited. Due to this socio-legal conundrum, present jurisprudential developments are significantly out of sync. Even when women were granted the right to inherit property, the doctrine of Pious Obligation faced numerous challenges in its legal implementation (Wife, Daughter, Sibling or Widow). Concerns were expressed concerning the reformation process's continuing interests in women's coparcenary rights.

When women were given inheritance rights in their father's property but were not forced to repay debts, questions were raised. The widow was not judged liable for the prior debt in "Keshav Nandan Sahay v. Bank of Bihar17", however The sons were held responsible for its recovery, and they rationalised it in such a way that it raised a number of concerns regarding the notion. It asserted that "the widow's allotment was not a proxy for her husband, but rather her own in terms of religious responsibilities, differentiating her sons from her". Later, the "High Court of Karnataka" (with additional modifications) took a similar stance.

"The wife will not be bound by the idea of religious obligation because she is not entitled to a portion by birth in Mitakshara coparcenary", according to Padminibai v. Arvind Purandhar Murabatte18". If we use this logic, is the daughter now liable for pious obligations? According to the rationale of the Karnataka High Court, if a daughter acquires a part through birth in the Mitakshara Coparcenary, she is now responsible for the disposal of her deceased father's duties.

This would have been decided by the courts in order to achieve certainty on this topic. Reunions and other Mitakshara coparcenary elements resulted in many contradictions because only the father's sons, brothers, nephews, and paternal uncles were invited, and women were absolutely prohibited. If we adopt the Karnataka High Court's reasoning, the uncodified statute would be tampered with if the daughter (or sister or niece) is permitted to participate in the reunion as a coparcener.

Rights Of A Creditor (After 2005 Amendment)
"He who has received a sum lent or the like and does not restore it to the owner shall be born hereafter in his creditors house a slave, a servant, a woman, or a quadruped", Hindu law (religious element) declared. Prior to the "2005 Amendment, a son's pledge to repay his father's debt was recognised as a holy duty, and this religious responsibility applied to sons, grandson, and great grandson who inherited coparcenary property through birth".

It should be noted that if the loan was received for an unlawful or immoral purpose, the burden of proof is on the son rather than the creditor; as a result, until the son proves that the loan was received for an illegal or immoral cause, the creditor can collect the lent money plus interest. Following the enactment of the "Hindu Succession Amendment Act" in 2005, "one important fact is that a creditor's entitlement to collect debts incurred by the father, grandfather, or great-grandfather, known as Pious Obligation, would not be recognised by any court under Section 6 of the Act (4)".

It should be emphasised, however, that creditors' rights will be protected if the loan was incurred by the father, grandpa, or great grandfather prior to the 2005 Amendment. To clarify the above-mentioned change to Section 6(4), the word "son, grandson, or great grandson" in the above expression only pertains to individuals born or adopted before September 9, 2005, i.e. before September 9, 2005, and will not apply to a partition done before December 20, 2004.

Under circumstances when the successor has stated a desire to be bound to the obligation, the provision will become ineffective. Given the importance of religion in India, as well as behavioural economic concepts, a review conducted by Chief Economic Adviser KV Subramanian advises that the "Doctrine of pious responsibility" be utilized to protect creditors' rights and prevent tax evasion and wilful defaults.

Disposing Inherited Property
The following are some of the instances in which a legal heir or will executor may be held liable for a deceased father's owing debts:

• Home/Mortgage Loans: After the borrower's death, the bank/lender will hold the guarantor (if present) and co-borrower (in the absence of a guarantee) responsible for the debt repayment. If both are gone, the loan can be passed to a legal heir, but if there is no will, the property's receiver will be held liable. Obtaining a life insurance policy for the borrower will assist the legal heirs in repaying the debt without excessive financial hardship. The legal heirs are entitled to the surplus payment if the property is auctioned by the lender to repay debts.
   
• Unsecured Loans: Credit cards or short-term personal loans are examples of unsecured loans that are utilized to remedy a liquidity crisis. The amount that can be recovered varies on the bank's terms and conditions, although most outstanding loans can only be recovered from legal heirs using the estate's liquid assets. If monies are insufficient, legal action against the estate may be pursued. Because the obligation is unsecured, the legal successor or executors of the will cannot utilize their own assets to repay it.
   
• Personal borrowings: There is no legal documentation for a loan taken out based on trust from friends and relatives. In that instance, the legal heirs are ethically compelled to repay the debt, but if the loan has a legal document, it will be classified as an unsecured loan.
   
• Statutory Liabilities: The legal heirs or the executor of the will must pay or close off any liabilities that have first been charged on an estate, such as unpaid income tax and the deceased's income tax report. The legal heir or executor is responsible for filing the deceased's income tax return and returning the PAN to the government. The successor who inherits the property is responsible for paying any outstanding taxes on the property, among other things.
   
• Loan against securities: For the securities (shares, mutual funds, bonds, etc.) to be freed and passed over to the legal heirs, the guarantor, or, in his absence, the legal heirs must pay off the loan amount against the pledged securities. The lender can collect the debt if the borrower defaults by selling the securities on the open market. To ensure that the collateral security is delivered on time, the legal successor must notify the lender and agree on a payback schedule.
   
• Business Liabilities: If the deceased was a sole owner, the executor or legal heirs should discharge the responsibilities (statutory dues, salary, and taxes) according to the books. The legal heir/executor is responsible for the sole proprietorship up to their portion of the inheritance if it isn't wound up.

Daughters Responsibility Resolving Past Debts
Due to the patriarchal structure of ancient Hindu society, women were not allowed to own property. Even if a woman earned it, she could not enjoy it since it was within the authority of her father, husband, or son. This structure persisted after the "Hindu Succession Act" was established in 1956, but it only recognized "the daughter's right to inherit her father's self-acquired property, not the coparcenary property, because she was not a coparcenary in the Joint Hindu household.

India's most significant success is the 2002 amendment, which allowed women entire control over their property and recognized daughters as coparceners in the Joint Hindu Family. In Indian culture, this was a watershed moment. Another issue that developed in the development of a woman's right to property was her dedication to religious responsibilities, which caused issues in the legal framework for women.

In "Pondicherry Kokilambal v. Pondicherry Sundarammal and Ors. 4, 1924"[6] it was the first time the Privy Council dealt with the subject of a daughter's religious responsibility, and it was noted that: "The entire law of the joint family, including right by birth, has to be applied, the only difference being that daughters took the place of sons and are entitled to such rights, as the sons would have in a joint family. If this view is correct the position will be that the plaintiff would have all the rights and liabilities of sons in a joint family.

If you concede the right by birth, and apply the law of the ordinary Mitakshara joint family, you must also concede the pious obligation of the daughter to discharge her mother's debts". Another contentious decision was "ITO v. K. Krishnamachari"[7] in which a father bequeathed property and unpaid debt to his two children, who received both the property and the debt immediately after his death as Class I heirs. "Unlike the situation of the sons, the daughters have no obligation to pay off their father's obligations," the court said. The daughters, on the other hand, would only be responsible for paying the debts of their father up to the value of the assets they received from him. As a consequence, it was determined that the girls would be unable to pay the debt and hence could not be held responsible.

The concept of pious obligation was eliminated following the 2005 modification to eliminate any discrepancies, however, the Karnataka High Court read it differently after the revision, posing a problem. If we apply this reasoning to the current situation, it is evident that a daughter who is recognized as a coparcener is responsible for repaying her father's liabilities in the same manner that a son is forced to repay his debts.

When the theory was in place, it would be fair to argue that girls would be held to the same standard as males when it came to paying their father's debts (pre-2005 amendment). If the concept had existed, a review of "Section 6(1)(a), (b), and (c)" would have shown that the vyavaharika debts would have been repaid by the daughters. However, with the 2005 modification, it was abolished under section 6(4), with few exceptions, and legal heirs will no longer be responsible for disposing of any debt. If the daughter announces her purpose and agrees to pay off her father's debt, she may be held liable under section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act.

Judicial Interpretation Of The Doctrine Of Pious Obligation
It is critical to discuss relevant case law when discussing the Doctrine of Pious Obligation.

"Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni" "Whether the father is the Karta of a Joint Hindu family and the debts are contracted by the father in his capacity as manager and head of the family for family purposes, the sons as members of the joint family are bound to pay the debts to the extent of their interest in the coparcenary property", the Supreme Court stated in this case. Furthermore, if the sons are joint with their father and the debts were incurred for the benefit of the father, the sons are obligated to pay the obligations if the debts were not committed for illegal or immoral purposes.

"Apentala Raghavaiah v. Boggawarapu Peda Ammayya" In this instance, the plaintiff's father, "Yellamanda", had a tobacco business with the respondent and therefore become indebted to him, causing the father to sell the property to the defendant to pay off the liabilities. The respondent filed a counterclaim, arguing that "the petitioner's father conducted a tobacco company for the benefit of the joint family, that the debt he accrued" was not an "Avyavaharika debt," and that the petitioner is obligated to repay his father's debt incurred in connection with the business.

"Luhar Marit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal" "The sons who dispute the father's alienations must prove not only that the preceding loans were immoral, but also that the purchasers had noticed that they were tainted", the Supreme Court stated. The learned judge observes that court judgments have changed the notion from what it was in the original texts in several ways. That the sons' duty is a personal obligation that exists regardless of the acquisition of any assets under present law, and that it is a liability limited to the assets acquired in his portion of the joint family property or his interest in it. Whether the sons are big or tiny, and whether the father is alive or dead, the obligation persists. The sons' part in the coparceners' property can always be held accountable if the debts were incurred by the father and are neither immoral nor irreligious.

"Suraj Bunsi Koer (Mother and guardian of the infant sons) v. Proshad Singh" In this case, "Adit Sahai, who was in debt, promised to pay Rs 13,000 to Bolaki Choudhury (from whom he took his debt)". He put his whole estate on the line, as well as his mouzah shares. After failing to pay the obligation and dying, the burden was passed on to his young boys, who were in this action represented by their mother. Meanwhile, Bolaki sold the property to a third party at auction.

The minor sons' mother, Suraj Bansi Koer, sued on their behalf, claiming that they are co-owners of their late father's property and that its alienation is unfair. It was recognized by a lower court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It was recognized by a lower court, which found in the plaintiff's favour. The court decided that there was no compelling reason to assume the Rs 13000 debt. Bolaki also failed to ask why such debt was accumulated, despite knowing Adit Sahai and his life well. The loan was classified as avyavaharika debt, and the sons were not required to return it. Because the purchase, i.e., "the third party, was without fault, Adit Sahai's portion of the joint family property, rather than the entire land, would be granted to them".

Conclusion
Though the old customary practice was explicitly biased against women's property rights, subsequent contemporary views corrected the prejudice via court judgments and directives that modify and reconstruct traditional practices. In the context of property inheritance, women were granted rights through the reform of Hindu laws, which immediately derecognized the pious obligation concept, which specifically excludes daughters as duty bearers, as a result of the change.

Having a retroactive impact on the modification to protect creditors' losses, on the other hand, made sons' obligation to repay debts positive, which created a prejudice against sons by placing liability only on them. Because women are promised succession and inheritance, it is suggested that "the pious duty doctrine be applied explicitly to them rather than implicitly, obviating their responsibility, because the pious obligation theory is founded on the interest over coparcenary right".

The pious obligation is the religious and moral duty of the son to repay the vyavharika debt of the father. Son is not liable to repay the avyavharika debt of the father. If the debt is obtained by the father for the benefit of the family and that debt is legal then the son will be liable to repay the debt. The reason behind this concept is that if the debt of the father was obtained for the benefit of the family and legal purposes, the son of the family will directly benefit from the act of the father.

The Son of the man was not liable to repay the avyavharika debt of the father because we cannot impose any fine or we cannot give punishment to any person who did not do any wrongful act. If we critically analyze the concept of pious obligation we can say that it gave a special type of security to the creditor. Because of this doctrine, creditors can take back money from the son of man. In ancient times daughters did not have equal rights as sons.

Daughters had no inheritance right on the property of the family, only sons have the right on the property of the family. That's why the son is liable to repay the vyavharika debt of the father. After the independence, the Indian legal system gave equal rights to the daughters in the property of the family. But if we see the doctrine of pious obligation, it is gender discriminatory in nature. According to the doctrine of pious obligation, only the son is liable to repay the debt and the daughter is not liable to repay the debt.

The question is that if a daughter has the same right as a son then why should only the son is liable to repay the debt? in the year of 2005, the doctrine of pious obligation was abolished by the parliament, and after this pious obligation ceased to operate. In modern times biased customary practice is reformed through judicial decisions orders and amendments. In this paper, we critically discussed the doctrine of pious obligation. In this paper, we discussed the basis of pious obligation in many cases of laws, and the reasoning of the courts related to the doctrine of pious obligation.

There are divergences in the interpretation of the court in similar facts. In some cases, the court gave the decision that son is not liable to pay the debt but in some other cases that have similar facts, the court gave a decision that son is not liable to pay the debt. in the above discussion, we can see that the doctrine of pious obligation was good to some extent. It gave the surety to the creditor that he could get the money back from the property of the debtor.

It thinks that abolishment of the doctrine is not the solution to the problem. Even nowadays in Hindu society, people consider nonpayment of debt as a sin. We should respect this type of thinking. The doctrine of pious obligation is indeed gender biased but despite this doctrine of pious obligation should not be abolished. The Full abolishment of any doctrine is not the solution we should erase the problems which are there and keep the law in force.

Bibliography
Acts:

• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act 30 of 1956) s. 6

Case Laws:

• Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni, 1978 AIR 1791
• Apentala Raghavaiah v. Boggawarapu Peda Ammayya, 1998 (1) ALD 11
• Mahabir Prasad v. Basdeo Singh, (1884) ILR 6 All 234
• Pareman Dass v. Bhattu Mohton, (1897) ILR 24 Cal 672
• Luhar Marit Lal Nagji v. Doshi Jayantilal Jethalal, 1960 AIR 964
• McDowell v. Ragava Chetty, (1903) ILR 27 Mad 71
• Durbar v. Khachar (1908) 10 BOMLR 297
• Natasayyan v. Ponnusami, (1893) ILR 16 Mad 99
• S.M. Jakati v. S.M. Borkar, AIR 1959 SC 282
• Sidheshwar Mukherjee Vs. Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narayan, 1954 SCR 177
• Toshanpal Singh v. District judge of Agra, 112 Ind Cas 748

Books

• Family Law II lecture- Family law (LexisNexis, 4th edition)
• Studies in Hindu law and Dharmasastra Ludo Rocher
• Hindu Succession P. K. Das
• The Joint Hindu Family Krishna Kamal Bhattacharya

Articles

1. Vijendra Kumar "Basis And Nature Of Pious Obligation Of Son To Pay Father's Debt Vis-A-Vis Statutory Modifications In Hindu Law" Vol. 36, No. 3 Journal of the Indian Law Institute pp. 339-355 (17 pages).
2. Family law son's pious obligation, Legal Service India, (Oct. 2020, 18, 08:45 AM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/sons_p.htm
3. Dr Poonam Pradhan Saxena, Family Law Lectures Family Law II, 195, (3rd edn.2013)
4. Dr Paras Diwan, Modern Hindu Law, 334, (23rd edition 2016)
5. Vijender Kumar, Basis and Nature of Pious Obligation of Son to Pay Father's Debt Vis-à-vis Statutory Modifications in Hindu Law, (Oct. 2020, 19, 09:00 AM), http://intranet.nluassam.ac.in/docs/course%20materialas/done/family_law_2.pdf
6. Venkatesh Dhonddev Deshpande v. Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni, 1978 AIR 1791
7. Pondicherry Kokilambal v. Pondicherry Sundarammal and Ors., AIR 1925, MAD 902
8. ITO v. K. Krishnamachari, 1985 11 ITD HYD 194
9. Doctrine of Pious Obligation, SRD Law Notes, (Oct. 2020, 18, 07:15 PM), http://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/01/doctrine-of-pious-obligation.html