History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.646.3

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.