History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.710

v4.c63.710

⁷⁸⁸ The British India Courts have been very much exercised over the question of the liability of ancestral property in the hands of the son for the obligations incurred by the father by his misconduct or embezzlement either as agent or manager for another or as guardian of a minor's property. It would follow from the passages quoted in n. 786 that ancestral property in the hands of the sons is not liable, acc. to some of our digests, if the father used or lost a deposit or loaned article by his negligence or mismanaged a minor's property. It is firmly established that the son is not liable for a debt incurred by the father in circumstances which would render the father liable to a criminal prosecution. Vide *Toshanpal Singh v. District Judge of Agra* 61 I. A. 350. In the latest case on the point, *Govindprasad v. Raghunathprasad* 41 Bom. L. R. 589 (F. B.) the exemption is carried further and it is recognized that as to the exemption of the son for '*avyāvahārika*' debts of the father, there are many cases which cannot be reconciled, that it is repugnant to good sense to construe ancient texts in the light of a system of criminal Jurisprudence developed long after and that the correct rule is to hold that 'the son can claim immunity when he proves that the debt of the father was of a character which was illegal, dishonest or immoral (p. 602)' though difficult cases may arise in the application of this rule. It would be far beyond the scope of this work to cite or discuss the other numerous decisions.