History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.646.4

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.