Civil liabilities transfer to his legal heirs while criminal liabilities cannot be transfered to another in the case of cheque amount they cannot prosecute legal heirs in cheque bounce case while they have the option to bring the civil suit for recovery against the legal heirs.
The complainant can not recover the amount and can not prosecute the legal heirs of the deceased under the Negotiable Insruments act.
Therefore, the legal heirs can not be respnsible for the same
Further, complainant has a right to file civil case for suit of recovery against the legal heirs of the deceased.
As per law, personal actions die with a person. in cases of cheque bounce if the accused die then the complainant cannot file a case again.st his legal heirs . he can recover it by filing civil case of recovery
For the debts of father, sons salary or property will not attached and father and son are different in the eye of law. That is to say father and son`s assets will be treated as their respective separate properties. So, It is false to state that for recovering deceased father`s debts, sons` property will be attached.
Other obligations such as personal tax are dissolved on the death of the person while loans from friends and family members are also not usually forced on legal heir unless there is a legal document which says that upon death, the son/s are liable to pay back. In all the above cases, it is best to consult a lawyer who can guide you.
Sometimes, banks also show leniency and may negotiate on the interest rates or penalties if any. A lawyer may be able to guide you, given your personal opinions and issues.
You are not liable to pay the debts taken by your father and recovery can be made from his estate which he may leave behind and which you inherit. Recovery from you can be a possibility if you stand surety for the repayment of the money borrowed by your father or in case you are a co-borrower. You cannot be made liable to pay from your pocket or personal properties.
Reference: Keshav Nandan Sahay Vs. The Bank of Bihar it was said that sons are liable under the theory of pious obligation for the preparation debts incurred by the father. The doctrine of pious obligation cannot apply to the wife and she, therefore, cannot be liable to the creditors on the principles applicable to the sons. On a partition between a coparcener and his sons, a share is allotted to the wife in her own right and she cannot be treated as mere representative of the husband. The principle is based upon ancient Hindu texts which do not mention the wife in the category of the sons and there is no statutory enactment ex- tending that doctrine so as to include her.
This liability of the sons, which had its origin in an obligation of piety and religion, has since metamorphosed into one of legal liability but this ‘does not, however, extend to debts tainted with immorality.
# The liability is not, however, personal in the sense that the creditor of the father cannot proceed either against the person or separate Property of the sons, but such liability is Restricted to the interest of the sons in the family property.
# It is settled that if the debt is contracted by the father after partition, the son cannot be made liable