DOCTRINE OF PIOUS OBLIGATION IN DEBT RECOVERY

This article has been written by Anushree Jha, University of Mumbai, Thane Sub-Campus.

Abstract:-

This comprehensive research article contains a detailed examination of the concept of ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ under Hindu law in the Indian legal context. This study aims to present a keen analysis of the doctrine including the kinds of debts included within the doctrine, its historic evolution, along with certain succinct merits and demerits. Additionally, this research endeavour also consists of an analysis of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in reference to the abolishment of the doctrine in Indian law. This research paper seeks to provide a valuable source of knowledge for legal practitioners, law enthusiasts and students alike.

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, debt is a sum of money that someone owes or the state of owing money[1]. Hindu Law has great significance under the Indian legal system as it encompasses various essential doctrines and statutes for the governance and administration of justice in relation to civil matters within India.

It is imperative to note that there was no codified legislation pertaining to the notion of pious obligation. Nonetheless, it was a substantial component of Hindu law and was acknowledged by the courts. The theory was outlawed by the Hindu Succession Act of 2005. This Doctrine is a moral and ethical framework that urges sons to pay off the debts of their deceased father out of a sense of obligation, honour, and social responsibility. This ideology was deeply entwined with religious and cultural beliefs.

Keywords:- Doctrine of Pious Obligation, Hindu Law, Vyavaharika Debts, Avyavaharika Debts, Hindu Succession Act of 2005

Introduction:-

The ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ is an essential legal doctrine that dominated the legal sphere in India for a long time. It is a principle in Hindu law that states that a son is obligated to pay off his father’s debts. This doctrine is a concept which is deeply rooted in ancient legal systems and holds that a moral duty exists to repay debts[2]. This principle transcends mere contractual obligations, emphasising a moral and ethical responsibility to fulfil the financial commitments of one’s deceased father. Although this doctrine was not codified in legislation, the ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ has been upheld and interpreted through various key judgments by courts, which continued to shape the legal principles surrounding Hindu Undivided Families (HUF)[3] and their obligations in repaying ancestral debts.

This Doctrine has significant roots in various legal and religious traditions. It essentially emphasises the moral and ethical duty to repay debts, transcending mere legal enforceability. This thought is deeply ingrained in Indian society, influencing both debtor-creditor relationships and the overall approach to debt recovery in the Indian legal system.

According to Hindu Law, a son, grandson, or great-grandson is responsible for paying off their deceased father, grandfather, or great-grandfather’s debts. The doctrine is based on the idea that the deceased’s soul may face negative consequences in the afterlife if they died with unpaid debts.  The doctrine only applies to sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons as only they were considered coparceners in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Additionally, the repayment of the debt i.e. the son’s liability was only limited to the principal amount of the debt, not the interest.

In simple words, The doctrine of pious obligation was a principle in Hindu law that required sons to repay their father’s debts. This doctrine was based on the idea that sons would benefit from the rights and property of their fathers, and therefore they should repay their debts[4]. The doctrine was considered a religious and moral obligation and was intended to ensure the spiritual salvation of the deceased father. It was also abolished by the Hindu Succession Act of 2005. However, this only applied to debts incurred after 2005.

Merits and Demerits of the Doctrine:-  

There are various merits and demerits of the doctrine that have evolved and have been discussed for a long time. Some of the advantages of the ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ include:-

1. Encourages moral behaviour:- The Doctrine of Pious Obligation pushes people and companies to be truthful and responsible in their financial transactions by highlighting the moral and ethical aspects of debt repayment.
2. Encourages a healthy credit market by boosting lender confidence and trust:- When borrowers regularly meet their responsibilities, lenders will become more confident and trusting.
3. Enhances social cohesiveness:- Keeping financial promises is crucial to preserving communal trust and social peace especially with lenders.
4. Discourages dishonest behaviour:- Making people aware of their family’s moral duty to pay back debts can discourage them from acting dishonestly or fraudulently[5].

However, despite the advantages, this doctrine possessed various limitations that ultimately led to its abolishment. Some of those disadvantages include:-

1. Subjectivity and enforcement:- Due to its intrinsic subjectivity, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation is challenging to define and apply in a legal setting. It may be interpreted and applied subjectively, which could result in ambiguities and discrepancies.
2. Possibility of abuse or exploitation:- In certain situations, The idea of “moral duty” or ethics may be exploited to put excessive pressure on debtors or to defend strict collection tactics.
3. Conflict with legal rights:- The Doctrine of Pious Obligation occasionally clashes with debtors’ legal rights[6], especially when unanticipated events render debt repayment impossible such as in cases of insolvency or bankruptcy.

Types of Debts Covered by the Doctrine:-

The ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ covers two types of debts that are described under Hindu Law[7]. One of the most important factors in assessing a son’s duty under the doctrine is the division of debts into Vyavaharika and Avyavaharika. Hindu law attempts to strike a balance between the necessity to avoid exploiting or unduly burdening successors and the idea of devotion by limiting the son’s obligation to debts committed for justifiable purposes. The two types of debts include:-

1. Vyavaharika Debts:- These are debts that were incurred for justifiable and legal reasons. According to the Doctrine of Pious Obligation, they are regarded as “righteous” debts that are typically enforceable against the son (and any descendants)[8].  Some examples of such debts include debts incurred for conducting business or defending oneself in court. Some other examples include:-

• Debts for legitimate business endeavours
• Debts for legal proceedings
• Debts for charity reasons
• Debts incurred for essential family expenses (clothes, food, and housing)

2. Avyavaharika Debts:- These refers to debts that were obtained for unlawful or unethical reasons. According to the Doctrine of Pious Obligation, they are regarded as “unrighteous” debts and are typically not enforceable against the son. Some examples include[9]:-

• Debts incurred for gambling
• Debts incurred for prostitution
• Debts incurred for intoxication
• Debts incurred for illegal activities

In simple words, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation highlights a son’s ethical and religious obligation to pay back his father’s debts. However, This duty is generally only restricted to Vyavaharika debts, thus acknowledging that a son shouldn’t have to bear the repercussions of his father’s unethical or unlawful behaviour and that paying back ‘Avyavaharika debts’ would be equivalent to endorsing or taking part in such wrongdoings. In most cases, it is the son’s responsibility to demonstrate that a debt is ‘Vyavaharika’ and Courts are empowered to decide whether a given debt is classified as Vyavaharika or Avyavaharika[10].

To understand the application of this doctrine, a hypothetical scenario is explained below:- 

1. X, the father of Mr. Y, had a severe gambling habit and accumulated a huge debt as a consequence. He died, leaving behind some ancestral property for his son.
2. In order to collect the gambling debts, the creditors went to his son, Mr. Y who stated that since these obligations were accumulated through unethical and unlawful means (gambling), he was not responsible for the repayment of the debt.
3. The son, Mr. Y would likely argue according to the principles of traditional Hindu law, contending that debts resulting from gambling are “avyavaharika”. In order to strengthen his claim that these debts are not legally enforceable, he can also bring up the fact that gambling is frequently restricted or even forbidden in many Indian states.
4. Conversely, The creditors may argue that regardless of the type of debt, Mr. Y is liable as the legitimate successor to his father’s assets. Additionally, they can try to demonstrate that Mr. Y was aware of or profited from his father’s gambling.
5. According to the doctrine, a son is only liable for debts incurred for moral and legitimate reasons (Vyavaharika debts) and therefore, the Court may determine whether the son is liable for the repayment of the debt legally, despite any moral duties owed by Mr. Y towards his father. Traditionally, Hindu Law does not consider any immoral and illegal debts to be binding on the family members.

 Historical Evolution:-  

The study of each legal doctrine must be accompanied by a deep analysis of its historical evolution. Throughout its lengthy history, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation has developed across numerous legal and cultural traditions. Ancient civilizations are where the “Doctrine of Pious Obligation” first emerged. A brief description of the evolution of the doctrine is mentioned below:-

• Roman Law:– Ancient Greece and Rome were considered as the first propounders of formal legal systems. A key tenet of commercial duties in Roman contractual arrangements was the concept of ‘good faith’, or bona fides, according to Roman law. It acknowledged that although contracts had legal force behind them, there was a moral obligation to conduct oneself honestly and equitably at all times for its fulfilment[11]. Therefore, The core principles of the ‘Doctrine of Pious Obligation’ of honesty and justice in interactions were highlighted in Roman law.
• British Common Law:– According to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, ‘Common Law’ is a system of laws that have been developed from customs and from decisions made by judges, not created by Congress[12]. Following the Norman Conquest (1066), England evolved a legal system known as British common law. It is applicable throughout the entire nation and is founded on regulations created by the royal courts[13]. The idea of good faith and fair dealing was included in the legal framework of English common law, which was influenced by Roman law. Even though the caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) theory was still applicable, courts acknowledged the need to keep their word and conduct business morally. Thus, Common law acknowledged the significance of good faith and fair dealing in contractual interactions, even if its primary focus was on legal rights and remedies. This idea, referred to as “uberrima fides,” highlighted the necessity of the highest good faith in specific contract types.[14]

In contrast, Common law also provides for a ‘Family Provision’ under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (I(PFD)A 1975) through which certain groups of people who were financially dependent on a deceased person may file a claim against the deceased’s estate for a reasonable amount of money. It is to be noted that the deceased had to have been a resident of England or Wales. Another name for a family provision claim is ‘an inheritance act claim’ or a ‘1975 Act claim[15]’.

These features of the common law systems based in England and other commonwealth nations aim to provide relief to those who are dependent on the deceased individual. This regulation permits specific family members (spouse, children, etc.) to petition the court for financial support from the deceased’s inheritance if they have not been sufficiently provided for in the will of the deceased[16].  This provision is concerned only with guaranteeing the financial security of dependents following the death of the principal earner, as opposed to pious obligation, which was mostly focused on debt repayment. Additionally, The courts under common law are also empowered to choose the right amount of monetary provision depending on the dependents’ needs and circumstances[17] whereas under this doctrine of pious obligation, the sons were traditionally subject to a fixed liability.

• Islamic Law:- According to Oxford Reference, Islamic law is a divine law based on the Quran and the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is also known as shariah and fiqh[18]. According to Islamic law, keeping one’s word and honouring agreements are very important. It stresses the value of honesty and dependability in all financial transactions and views debt repayment as a religious obligation. Numerous passages and hadiths in the Quran and the Sunnah stress the value of integrity, dependability, and keeping one’s word, even when it comes to debt commitments.

In Contrast with the Doctrine, There exists a concept of ‘Dayn’ under Islamic Law which refers to a number of things, including debt, the cost of commodities, sales with postponed payments, things that are not yet mature, and things that are not in existence. In its broadest sense, Dayn can refer to any type of obligation a person may have, whether it be to Allah Ta’ala or to another person, and it can be settled with property or in some other manner. According to Ibn Nujaim, Dayn is an obligation of rights on someone’s accountability. However, Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI), Sharī‘ah Standard No. (4)17, provides the precise definition of dayn (debt) as the following: “A debt is any liability that is not in terms of a specified or defined item, whatever the cause of its establishment, i.e. whether its origin is in cash or in a commodity, or in a particular described benefit such as the benefit of using particular things or services of persons. For instance, the consideration in deferred sales and loans is described as a debt”. Therefore, the debt (dayn) is referred to the liability of a person towards creditor or financier which is incurred from any financial contracts such as tawarruq, murābaÍḥah, ijārah, and qarÌ with a financial institution or a person[19].”

In simple words, Dayn is any debt or liability encompassing financial debts, unpaid dowry (mahr) etc[20]. As for the liability, Islamic law places a strong emphasis on family members’ obligations to pay off a deceased person’s debts. However, Islamic law typically restricts accountability to the deceased’s estate, in contrast to the traditional Hindu legal concept of pious obligation. Beyond the assets left by the deceased, family members are not held individually responsible for any debts[21]. Therefore, ‘Dayn’ and pious obligation both emphasize how crucial it is to pay debts, even after one passes away. However, Dayn usually limits the liability to the deceased’s fortune[22] but pious obligation can also extend to the sons’ personal possessions.

• Hindu Law:–  Hindu law acknowledges the significance of carrying out one’s responsibilities, including debt repayment, by placing a strong focus on Dharma (goodness) and Karma (activity and its results)[23]. It highlights the significance of upholding one’s honour and integrity and views debt repayment as a moral obligation. It also stated that one should repay the debts of those ancestors whose lineage you are. The idea of “dharma arth kama moksha” (righteousness, riches, desire, freedom) highlights how important it is to carry out one’s obligations, including paying back debts.

Interpretation in the Indian Legal Scenario:-

Under Indian Jurisprudence, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation came to be as a result of various incidents. For example, Re Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheshwar Mukherjee (1953)[24].

In reference to the Doctrine of Pious Obligation, A landmark judgement often cited is ‘Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheswar Mukherjee’, adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on October 5, 1953.[25] The brief facts of the case state that sometime before 1932, Bhubneshwar Prasad, the primary defendant in this case and a member of a joint Hindu family, borrowed a certain amount of money from Panchanan Banerjee using a promissory note, thus incurring a debt. The question before the Hon’ble Court was whether the creditor could collect this debt from Bhubneshwar’s property along with his sons’ shares of the family property, who were members of the same joint family, thus reflecting the doctrine[26].

In its judgement, The Supreme Court affirmed the doctrine of pious obligation stating that although the sons had nothing to do with their father’s debt, they were nevertheless responsible for the repayment. Therefore, The court’s ruling upheld the notion that such debts might be paid off using family property[27]. This case serves as an excellent illustration of how this doctrine was made applicable in real life and established its legal validity by showing that sons might be held accountable for the justifiable debts of their fathers. It also displays the interpretation of Hindu law at the time by the courts, which put a high value on family responsibilities and the utilization of family assets to pay off obligations.

Additionally, the Supreme Court also examined the doctrine’s origins in this case. They highlighted its extensive history in Hindu tradition by tracing it back to ancient books and scriptures. The Hon’ble Court linked historical smritis to the development of the idea of pious obligation. They are defined below[28]:-

1. According to Yajnavalkya, if a father is dead, overseas, or experiencing financial difficulties, sons and grandsons are obligated to settle his debts.
2. While Narada emphasizes that if debts are not paid off after death, the merit of one’s devotions goes to creditors.
3. Brihaspati emphasizes the karma implications of not repaying debts.
4. According to Dharmashastra, if a man needs to pay off both his father’s and his own debts, he should pay off his father’s debts first. The grandfather’s debts should be paid off first out of all of the father’s and grandfather’s debts.

Impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005:-

The laws pertaining to the concept of pious obligation include the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005[29].  The Doctrine of Pious Obligation has faced elimination as the notion that sons should bear full responsibility for their father’s debts began to appear unjust as societal norms changed. This modification represents a more equal and contemporary attitude to family duties.

The concept of religious duty was modified by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005. A claim against a son, grandson, or great-grandson for a debt owed by their father, grandfather, or great-grandfather cannot be recognized by any court, according to the amendment. However, only future debts incurred after 2005 are covered by the amendment.

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, drastically altered the religious responsibility. Therefore, The doctrine of the son’s pious responsibility to repay debts has been finally repealed by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.[30]

The Rationale behind Abolishment:-

The Doctrine of Pious Obligation was seen as outdated and legally unappealing due to various causes. One of the most significant causes included the fact that many considered the doctrine as patriarchal and contributing to gender bias and inequality. Additionally, Confusion and controversial court rulings resulted from the doctrine.

The Amendment act in 2005, under Section 6, granted daughters the same inheritance and debt-repayment rights as sons. Due to the devolution of interest in coparcenary property, the amendment prevented a court from pursuing a son, grandson, or great-grandson for debts acquired after 2005. Additionally, it ensured that a coparcener’s daughter had the same rights and responsibilities for the coparcenary property as his son[31].

Before the Amendment, Male family members were generally given preference in situations pertaining to coparcenary property (joint family property) in Hindu law, especially the Mitakshara school of thought. Daughters had few rights, usually merely the right to maintenance and marriage costs, while sons were coparceners by birth[32]. Therefore, This system led to immense gender disparity in property ownership. According to the doctrine, sons were viewed as the main inheritors and accountable members of the family facilitating patriarchal norms. Daughters were essentially exempt from this monetary liability due to their restricted coparcenary rights. They were not accountable for debts in the same way as sons since they were not regarded as coparceners. Consequently, this served to further solidify women’s inferior status in families. Therefore, the 2005 Amendment proved to be a beneficial shift for daughters as it sought to empower women in financial matters and property ownership and thus reduce gender disparities by modernising inheritance laws.

Through equal rights in the coparcenary property, the section seeks to end prejudice against sons and daughters. Joint Hindu households subject to ‘Mitakshara’ law are also covered under this clause. The norm of devolution by survivorship among the coparcenary members is acknowledged in this section. In simple words, in 2005, the provision was changed to grant daughters the same rights as sons with regard to the coparcenary property.[33]

Conclusion:- 

In conclusion,  Despite not being expressly stated in Indian law, the Doctrine of Pious Obligation remained a strong moral precept that directed both social and legal behaviour until 2005. Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons were greatly affected by this doctrine, which expressly stated that preserving the spiritual health of ancestors is a moral and religious obligation and that repayment was a means of absolving the parent of the sin of failing to settle his debts. Its application in the Indian Context largely was seen as the father could settle obligations by using the son’s portion of the coparcenary property[34] and that the son must demonstrate that a debt incurred by his father is avyavaharika. The goal of the doctrine was to protect the deceased’s spiritual health, not to enrich the creditor. Presently, The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 has eliminated the doctrine altogether. Daughters now have the same rights as sons in coparcenary property thanks to the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005.

The legacy of the doctrine as we know it, however, continues to resonate in modern Hindu law and debt recovery practices. In the current Indian legal scenario, the abolition of the doctrine has brought a large shift of responsibility from the family of the debtor to individual responsibility which aligns itself with contractual laws which rely on individual autonomy in debt repayment. Additionally, Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 has granted daughters equal liabilities within the property of their father along with the benefits, in line with the gender-neutral legal system we dream of today. However, Section 4 of the same act states that the doctrine has been eliminated altogether[35]. In conclusion, the amendment act has significantly changed family dynamics in relation to debt recovery and also provided clarity and certainty regarding Hindu familial debt liability.

[1] Debt, OXFORD LEARNER’S DICTIONARIES, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/debt (last visited Jan. 18, 2025).

[2] Md. Abu Hanif & Rumana Sharmin Barsha, A Study on Debts and Its Liability under Hindu Law: State of Bangladesh, 14 PRIME U. J. 1 (last visited Jan. 19, 2025) https://primeuniversity.edu.bd/file/crhp_details/1694580688.pdf.

[3] Tahiti, A Comprehensive Study on Doctrine of Pious Obligation, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA (last visited Jan. 16, 2025), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-17231-a-comprehensive-study-on-doctrine-of-pious-obligation.html.

[4] Kumarappan M., Doctrine of Pious Obligation and Antecedent Debt, 2 IJLRA 7 (Mar. 2024), https://www.ijlra.com/paper-details.php?isuurl=doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-antecedent-debt-by-kumarappan-m.

[5] Shubhankar Agnihotri, A Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Pious Obligation, SSRN (abstract accessed Jan. 18, 2025), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4384255.

[6] Aishwarya Agrawal, Doctrine of Pious Obligation, LAW BHOOMI (last visited Jan. 19, 2025), https://lawbhoomi.com/doctrine-of-pious-obligation/#:~:text=Pious%20Obligation%20under%20Modern%20Hindu%20Law,-The%20Doctrine%20of&text=The%20son’s%20liability%20to%20pay,aimed%20at%20protecting%20third%20parties.

[7] Titikhya Barkataki, The Doctrine of Pious Obligation and Its Relevance under the Hindu Law in the Present Time, 1 AIJACLA 356 https://www.aequivic.in/post/aijacla-the-doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-its-relevance-under-the-hindu-law-in-the-present-time.

[8]  Ibid.

[9]  A. Gladius & S. Bhuvaneswari, An Appraisal on Doctrine of Pious Obligation and Its Competent Responsibility upon Daughters, 120 INT’L J. PURE & APPLIED MATH. 4481, 4481-93 (2018), ISSN: 1314-3395, http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/.

[10] Anirudh Nikhare, Doctrine of Pious Obligation, FINOLOGY (last visited Jan. 20, 2025), https://blog.finology.in/Legal-news/doctrine-of-pious-obligation#:~:text=Burden%20of%20Proof,creditor%20was%20aware%20of%20this.

[11] Good Faith, LEGISCOMPARE (last visited Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.legiscompare.fr/web/IMG/pdf/13._CH_5_Good_faith.pdf.

[12]  Common Law, OXFORD LEARNER’S DICTIONARIES, (last visited Jan. 20, 2025).

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/common-law

[13] The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, BERKELEY LAW (last visited Jan. 20, 2025), https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.pdf.

[14] Akhilesh Ganti, Uberrimae Fidei Contract, INVESTOPEDIA (last visited Jan. 21, 2025), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/uberrimae-fidei-contract.asp.

[15] Family Provision Claim Definition, LEXISNEXIS (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/family-provision-claim.

[16] Understanding Family Provision Claims in NSW: A Comprehensive Guide, LEXOLOGY (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=308e123a-223f-43c1-9dca-b3c9abd78d55.

[17] Family Provision Claims, LEGAL AID NSW (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/someone-who-died/wills-and-estates/family-provision-claims#accordion-b01bdb4584-item-6daacb49b2.

[18] Islamic Law OXFORD REFERENCE (last visited Jan. 21, 2025), https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100012392#:~:text=Two%20terms%20are%20used%20to,shariah%20through%20investigation%20and%20debate.

[19] Abdul Muneem, Dr. Nor Fahimah Mohd Razif & Dr. Abdul Karim Ali, A Juristic Study of Qalb al-Dayn in Islamic Banks from Sharī‘ah Perspective, HAMDARD ISLAMICUS (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://hamdardislamicus.com.pk/index.php/hi/article/download/278/226/1016.

[20]  Bai` Dayn, Resolutions of the Securities Commission Shariah Advisory Council, BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.bnm.gov.my/documents/6319173/6348793/0068BAI%60+DAYN.pdf/b5507979-b0c1-08a8-1c2c-cc6bdf16dfb8?t=1646303776943.

[21]  Repayment of Debt After Death of Person in Islam, AAIIL (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://aaiil.org/Files/Literatures/Articles/104/Repayment0fDebtAfterDeathofPersoninIslam.pdf.

[22]  Aishah Sakinah Mazlan, Sarah Nuraheem Mohd Fouzi & Muneerah Mohd Azlan, Fundamentals of Islamic Asset Management Planning, ZAIN (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.zain.com.my/en/insights/articles/2024/february/15/frequently-asked-questions-fundamentals-of-islamic-asset-management-planning.

[23] Devdutt Pattanaik, The Hindu Concept of Debt, ECONOMIC TIMES (last visited Jan. 21, 2025), https://m.economictimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/the-hindu-concept-of-debt/articleshow/63049930.cms.

[24] Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheshwar Mukherjee, A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 487.

[25] Liability of Sons for Father’s Debts Under Mitakshara Law: Insights from Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Others, CASEMINE (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/liability-of-sons-for-father’s-debts-under-mitakshara-law:-insights-from-sidheshwar-mukherjee-v.-bhubneshwar-prasad-narain-singh-and-others/view.

[26] B.K. Mukherjea, Sidheshwar Mukherjee v. Bhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh, INDIAN KANOON (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94289/#:~:text=It%20is%20180%20admitted%20that,disputed%20that%20if%20a%20partition

[27]  Ibid. 25

[28] Doctrine of Pious Obligation, DRISHTI JUDICIARY (last visited Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/doctrines/family-law-doct/doctrine-of-pious-obligation.

[29] S. Muthu Maharajan, Abrogation of Doctrine of Pious Obligation – Debt of a Deceased Father/Ancestor – Liability of the Legal Heirs, Regional Centre of Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, (last visited Jan. 22, 2025).

https://www.tnsja.tn.gov.in/article/abod_legal_heirs.pdf

[30] Section 6(4) in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, INDIAN KANOON (last visited Jan. 22, 2025), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126846715/.

[31]  Manini Menon, Court Clarifies Application of § 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, SC OBSERVER (last visited Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.scobserver.in/journal/court-clarifies-application-of-s-6-of-hindu-succession-act-1956/.

[32] Bina Agarwal & Shruthi Naik, Do Courts Grant Women Their Inheritance Shares? An Analysis of Case Law in India, SCIENCEDIRECT (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X2400158X.

[33]  Hindu Succession Act, 1956, § 6.

[34] Ibid. 6

[35] Titikhya Barkataki, The Doctrine of Pious Obligation and Its Relevance under the Hindu Law in the Present Time, 1 AIJACLA 356, 356-63, AEQUIVIC (last visited Feb. 10, 2025), https://www.aequivic.in/post/aijacla-the-doctrine-of-pious-obligation-and-its-relevance-under-the-hindu-law-in-the-present-time.