SATHEESAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a novel and interesting question. It concerns the application of the theory of pious obligation in relation to an abkari debt.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 appeal. Plaintiff is State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Palghat. The State sought a decree to recover from the 4th defendant personally and also by the sale of the properties of defendants 1 to 3 an amount of Rs. 46,816. 19 being the abkari arrears due to the Government from the 4th defendant. These are the facts.

(3.) The defence. The main contention raised by the defendants - appellants herein is that their share in the joint family are not liable for the debt incurred by the father. Considering the nature of the debt, though the debt is incurred by the father, the properties of defendants 1 to 3 cannot be amerced invoking the theory of pious obligation. The debt is an Avyavaharika debt, to which pious obligation theory does not apply at all. So, it was contended that the properties of the defendants are not liable for the debt of the father and no decree can be passed against defendants 1 to 3.