History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.658

v4.c63.658

38, Kauṭ. III. 16, Manu VIII. 159-160, Vas. 16. 31, Yāj. II. 47 and 54, Nār. IV. 10, Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 329 verse 51), Kāt. (564-565), Uśanas and Vyāsa provide that the son is not bound to pay the following debts of his father viz. those incurred as a surety (for honesty or appearance), for drinking or in gambling, those arising from idle promises (to bards, wrestlers and the like), debts for promises made under the influence of wrath or illicit love to women, the balance of a fine or toll and those that are not *vyāvahārika*. A debt arising from wrath is explained by Kāt. as one where the father causes physical injury to another or destroys another's property through anger and then promises something to pacify the person wronged. As regards the suretyship debts of the father, Yāj. II. 54, Vyāsa and Kāt. (561) provide that when the father was a surety for payment, then the son was bound to pay the principal of the debt for which the father stood surety, but the son of the son was not liable at all to pay the suretyship debt of his grandfather even when the latter was a surety for payment⁷⁵³. These verses about the debts which the son was not bound to pay have been quoted and explained in numerous decisions of the courts. But as this work does not profess to be a treatise on modern Hindu Law those cases are passed over here. What is meant by 'debts that are not vyāvahārika' has presented the greatest difficulty to the medieval commentaries and digests and also to modern courts as noted below⁷⁵⁴. Kāt. 534 further notes that where the father became a surety for appearance (or honesty) after receiving a pledge from the person whose surety he became, then the son of the surety may be made to pay the money due from that pledge in case the father is dead or has gone abroad⁷⁵⁵.