The heirs inheriting an estate are under a legal and moral obligation to discharge the liabilities incurred by the predecessor, and the exemption from liability under section 6(4) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies only if the heirs do not receive any assets from the predecessor and receive only the liabilities incurred after 09-09-2005.

JUDGMENT

Mangesh S. Patil, J. - Heard the learned advocate of both the sides on the point of admission.

2. The original defendants are in second appeal, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, holding them liable to pay to the respondent/plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,78,500/- together with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit i.e. 30-01-2014 and the dismissal of their appeal by the District Court.

3. Deceased Rajendra was the husband of the appellant no.1 and father of other two appellants. He borrowed Rs.4 lakh as a handloan from the respondent and agreed to return it within a month. He failed to repay. The respondent raised demand with Rajendra. He issued couple of cheques drawn on his banker for Rs.2 lakh each payable on 17-01-2013 and 20-01-2013. The cheques were presented for encashment on 08-04-2013, but were dishonoured and returned to her on 16-04-2013. a statutory notice for initiating a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 was sent to him. He received it. Unfortunately, Rajendra died in a road accident on 30-04-2013. a fresh notice was served to the appellants, but they did not respond and the suit was instituted.

4. The appellants contested the suit by their written statement. They denied Rajendra having obtained handloan from the respondent or to have issued any cheque. They also denied about he having received any notice and prayed to dismiss. The trial court conducted hearing and decreed the suit.

5. The lower appellate court concurred with the finding of facts recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal by the judgment and order under challenge.

6. The main bone of contention of learned advocate Mrs. Dube for the appellants has been on sub-section 4 of section 6 of the Hindu Succession act, 1956 which came into force with effect from 09-09-2005, which declares the concept of pious obligation would only apply to the debts incurred by the deceased father and the stipulated heirs are not liable for recovery of any debt incurred by the ancestor after coming into force of the act on 09-09-2005. She would submit that admittedly, deceased Rajendra had incurred the debt after 09-09-2005 and the appellants being the heirs would be under no legal obligation to discharge it. In support of her submissions she would place reliance on a decision in the matter of Sri. Solairaj Vs. Smt.Vijayarani in Civil Revision Petition No. 575 of 2018 of the Madras High Court, dated 19-07-2018.

7. Learned advocate Mrs. Dube would submit that the trial court did not address a similar argument advanced before it, whereas the district court has turned it down. The issue gives rise to a substantial question of law and the second appeal be admitted.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Patil for the respondent would submit that so far as liability and its proof is concerned, both the courts below have concurrently recorded a finding about the debt having been proved and this court in second appeal cannot exercise the jurisdiction when the concurrent conclusions are based on reasonable appreciation of evidence.

9. Learned advocate Mr. Patil would further submit that though sub-section 4 of section 6 of the Hindu Succession act, specifically declares the heirs not to be liable to pay the debt under the concept of pious obligation which have been incurred after 09-09-2005, it was sufficiently brought in evidence as pointed out by the district court that the appellants have inherited an immovable property with a water purification plant and therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the debt from an out of the estate inherited by them. The district court has rightly referred to such evidence while holding that they are not entitled to reap any benefit from that provision.

10. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record and proceeding.

11. So far as the debt is concerned, both the courts below, on the basis of reasonable appreciati