The doctrine of pious obligation of the sons of a Hindu to discharge the pecuniary liability of their father which is not tainted by illegality or immorality does not extend to the liability of the father to pay arrears of income-tax.

( 1 ) THIS appeal was refereed to a Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of Jaganmohan Reddy, Chief Justice (as he then was) and Sambasiva Rao, J. , in view oft the importance of the question that arises inn this case, namely whether the arrears of income-tax, due by the father in respect of a separate, business prior to a partition between him and his sons can be recovered form the sons after the partition under the doctrine of pious obligation.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is against the order of Gopalakrihsan Nair, J. , dismissing a Writ Petition Praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to forbear form collecting certain arrears of income-tax by attachment and sale of there properties. The father of the petitioners, appellants herein was one Venkateswara Rao. He and his divided brother Lakhsman Rao carried on business in partnership under the name and style of Govindarao and Sons. Fro the years 1945-46, 1946-47 and 1947-48 this firm was assessed of a total income-tax of Rs. 92, 178-44. the firm was dissolved by an agreement between the two partners in the end of 1948. The tax was not paid by the partners in spite of demand. On 20-11-1952 Venkateswara Rao and his sons who constituted a joint family partitioned their family properties, each of them taking a separate share. N arrangement was made for payment of the earners of income-tax due by the father, Venkateswara Rao, as a partner of the aforesaid firm. Eventually the Income-tax Officer issued a certificate under Section 46 (2) or the Income-tax Act for recovery of the tax due by proceeding against the properties of the father which the father as well as the sons obtained in the partition. The properties were attached and were sought to be brought to sale. The Sons, thereupon file Writ Petition No. 1221 or 1963 before this Court praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities of forbear form proceeding with the recovery of the arrears of income-tax. Several contentions were raised before Gopalakrishnan Nair, J. , all of which were negatived by him. It is sufficient to mention only the third contention raised before him, as that is the only contention that is pressed before us, i. e. the doctrine of pious obligation of the sons of a Hindu to discharge the pecuniary liability of their father which is not tainted by illegality or immorality does not extend to the liability of the father to pay arrears of income-tax, Gopalkrishnan Nair, J. , negatived this contention stating that the debts due to the Government undoubtedly stand on a higher footing than a debt due to a private individual or institution and the pious obligation of the sons to discharge their fathers debt due to the State. In the result he dismissed the Writ Petition. The same contention is reiterated before us in this Appeal.

( 3 ) UNDER ancient Hindu Law as laid down by the Smiritis the non-payment of a debt was regarded as assign, the consequences of which follow the debtor even after his death. A text which is attributed to Brihaspathi says "he who having received a sum lent or the like does not repay it to the owner, will be born hereafter in the creditors house a slave, a servant, a woman or a quadruped" There are other texts which say that a person in debt goes to hell. Hindu Law givers therefore imposed a pious duty on the descendants of a man including his son, grandson, and great grandson to pay off the debts of there ancestor and relieve him of the after death torments consequent on non-payments. In the original texts a difference was made in regard to the obligation resting upon sons, grandsons and great grandsons in this respect. The son was bound to discharge the ancestral debt as if it was his own together with interest and irrespective of any assets that he might have received. The liability of the grandson was much the same except that he was not of pay any interest. The great grandson was liable only if he received assets form his ance