Examine the liability of a son to pay his father’s debt contracted before and after partition. Ans. The liability of the son to pay his father’s debt may be divided into two heads-1. Before Partition and 2. After Partition 1. Liability for the Debt Contracted Before Partition – The liability for the debt contracted before partition may be sub-divided into the following two classes—(a) Debts incurred by the father as manager or Karta of the joint family for family purposes are valid and proper because he has authority to contract debts for necessity or for the benefit of the family and whole joint family property, including the interest of the sons, grandsons and great grandsons, is liable for the payment of that debt only if the partition takes place between the sons and the father after passing of a decree against the father, the partition would be ignored and the share of the sons can be proceeded against in executidn of the decree in a creditor’s suit. (b) If the debt incurred by the father is for his personal benefit, the son on the basis of the doctrine of pious obligation will be liable for the payment of the debt provided the debt is not tainted with illegality or immorality. This liability is limited to the son’s interest in the coparcenary property and the whole property is not liable for the payment of the personal debts. 2. Liability for the Debt Contracted After the Partition—The sons, after a partition with the father, are under no legal liability to pay his debts contracted after the partition. The son is, however, liable after the partition for a debt contracted by the father before partition but only to the extent of the share he has obtained on the partition. The following points should be noted in this connectidn—(i) A decree against the father alone passed when he was joint with the son, is binding on the son even after partition, though it is open to impeach it either in execution proceedings or in a separate suit, on the ground that the debt for which the decree was passed was incurred for ‘illegal’ or ‘immoral’ purposes. (ii) If such decree is to be executed after the son has separated from the father, the son must be made a party to the execution proceedings, if his separated share to be binding on the son. (iii) A decree passed after•partition against the father alone for his pre-partition debts (though not immoral) is not binding on the separated son. After partition a decree must be obtained against the son if his share is to be held liable. (iv) To obtain such a decree, the creditor must either join the son as a party to the suit against the father, or if he has already obtained a decree against the father alone after the partition, he must file a separate suit against the son on the original debt. (v) Where there has been a decree against a Hindu father on a debt binding on his sons as not being illegal or immoral and a partition takes place between him and his son after the decree, the decree can be executed by attachment and sale of the properties which has come to the son’s share. It is not necessary for the decree-holder to bring a separate suit for the purpose. (i) Liability for the debt contracted before partition—The opinions of Various High Courts differ on the question of the liability of a son to pay off his father’s debt contracted by the father before partition but only to the extent of the share he has obtained on the partition. (ii) Liability for the debt contracted after partition—It was held by the Orissa High Court in Brindaban Chandra Das Vs. State of Orissa, AIR. 1971, Orissa 2811. that a son is not liable for a debt contracted by the father after partition. It was held in Hardwarilal Vs. Dwarka Prasad, A.I.R. 1974, Raj. 101 that, in case of post-partition debt contracted by a father, the Rajasthan High Cdurt has held that the creditor cannot recover his debt from the share allotted to the sons oh partition. Sons are liable for father’s pre-partition debt unless partition reasonably secures payment thereof.