History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.646
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.646
- Language
- English
v4.c63.646.1
The important question is whether the smṛtis declare the liability of the great-grandson. It is clear that smṛtis like that of Bṛ. expressly say that the great-grandson is not liable to pay his great-grandfather's debt. The Viṣṇu Dh. S. VI. 28 says that the descendants beyond the grandson need not pay if they are unwilling to pay. Others like Nār. IV. 4 and Kāt. say that the obligation to return a debt ceases from the fourth. The question is what is meant by the fourth i. e. is it meant to exclude, in calculating, the original debtor or to include him? It is possible to hold (particularly because the great-grandson is not expressly mentioned in most smṛtis) that the fourth means 'inclusive of the original debtor'. But this appears to be in conflict with the rule in Manu IX. 137 (which is the same as Baud. Dh. S. II. 9. 6, Vas. 17. 5, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 15. 46) that the son, grandson, and great-grandson confer the greatest spiritual benefit on the ancestor, the rule (Manu IX. 186, Nār. IV. 6) that *piṇḍas* (in *śrāddha*) are to be offered by three persons in descent and the general rule that whoever takes the inheritance must offer the piṇḍa and pay the debts of the ancestor (Gaut. XII. 37, Yāj. II. 51, Nār. IV. 23, Viṣṇu Dh. S. XV. 40 and VI. 29). Therefore, following the canons, viz.
v4.c63.646.2
the rights to property are co-extensive with the liability to perform śrāddha and to pay off debts (which is quite logical and reasonable), that the texts relating to the same subject matter must be harmonized and reconciled as far as it is reasonably possible⁷⁴⁴ to do (*ekavākyatā-nyāya*), that apparently conflicting texts are to be assigned their appropriate spheres (*viṣayavyavasthā*), and that a direct conflict (and so an option) is to be presumed only if no other recourse is open, the Mitākṣarā and other commentators put forward the interpretation that the texts stating that the great-grandson is not liable to pay the great-grandfather's debt apply only to cases where the great-grandson inherits no ancestral property, but that he is *liable* if he takes ancestral property. Dr. Jolly in his note on Nār. IV. 6 (in S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 44) remarks: "the doctrine, viz. the liability to pay debts contracted by an ancestor extends to the great-grandson, is opposed to the teaching of such an eminent authority as *Vijñāneśvara, who maintains in the Mitākṣarā that the great-grandson*⁷⁴⁵ *is not liable for debts contracted by his great-grandfather, and conversely that he does not inherit his property*. He makes similar remarks in his Tagore Law Lectures for 1885 (on 'adoption, partition' &c. p. 171). Dr. Jolly is under some misapprehension since the Mit.
v4.c63.646.3
in two places deals with this matter and expressly states that the great-grandson is liable to pay debts contracted by his great-grandfather if he has taken ancestral estate but not otherwise. The following propositions are deducible from the smṛti texts and authoritative commentaries like the Mit. and the Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāraprakāśa). The⁷⁴⁶ first proposition is that the debts of a man must be paid by his three descendants (son, grandson and great-grandson) if they have ancestral estate in their hands (Mit. on Yāj. II. 51 quoted in note 745, Sm. C. II. p. 171, V. P. p. 264). The 2nd proposition is that even when no ancestral estate was taken by the descendants the son was liable to pay his father's debts with interest, the grandson was liable to pay his grandfather's debt but without interest and the great-grandson was not liable to pay even the principal, if he was unwilling to pay. This proposition is enunciated by Viṣṇu Dh. S. VI. 27-28, Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 328 v. 49 referred to on p. 443) and Kāt. 556⁷⁴⁷. In *Narasimharav v. Antaji* 2 Bom. H. C. R. 61 it was held (probably following Bṛhaspati, though not quoted in the judgment) that the grandson was liable to pay the debt of his grandfather without interest even if there was no ancestral estate.
v4.c63.646.4
This was felt to be a great hardship on heirs (taking no ancestral estate) and in order to remove it Bombay Act VII of 1866 (the Hindu Heirs' Relief Act) was passed whereby it is provided that a son or grandson is not liable to be sued for the debts of his deceased ancestor merely by reason of his being such a son or grandson and that the son, grandson or other heir shall be liable only to the extent of the assets that come to his hands. The same is the law laid down in other parts of India by judicial decisions. Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 328 verse 48) recommends that the father's debt must be paid first of all and after that one's own debt; but a debt of the grandfather must always be paid even before the preceding⁷⁴⁸ two kinds of debt. These two propositions of Hindu jurists are very lucidly, but succinctly, set forth by the Vīramitrodaya quoted below⁷⁴⁹. The third proposition (which is an exception to the above two) is that even a son is not liable to pay certain illegal and immoral debts of his father. This proposition will be discussed a little further on. A fourth proposition is that even when the father is not dead, the son, grandson or great-grandson may be liable to pay the father's or other ancestor's debt under certain circumstances. Yāj. II. 50 provides that sons (and grandsons) must pay the debt of the father when he is dead or has gone to a distant country or is afflicted with an incurable disease. Nār.⁷⁵⁰ IV. 14, Viṣṇu VI. 27, Kāt.