In almost all countries at an early stage of civilization some legal provision exists by which debtors can be compelled by their creditors to pay their debts, and by which, if they fail to do so, their property can be seized and applied to this purpose. But the extent to which this can be done varies very considerably. So long as the family system exists in its primitive vigour it acts as a protection to the family property against the extravagance of a single member, and we often find that even when the family system has almost, or completely disappeared, there is an unwillingness to deprive the future representatives of the family of their land and houses. Doubts, too, have arisen as to whether the same right which a creditor has against his living debtor can be exercised after the debtor's death against those who have succeeded to his property. In India these two considerations have been deeply affected by a principle enunciated by Hindu lawyers (traces of which we find in many Eastern countries), that a man who dies in debt suffers cruel tortures in a future state, and that it is the imperative duty of his own immediate dependants to deliver him from these tortures by discharging his liabilities. Whether this should be looked upon as a legal, or only as a purely religious duty, might be questionable: the courts have seized upon it as a basis for laying down in the broadest manner the just rule that those who take the benefit of succession must take the burdens also. The subject is one which has caused a great deal of litigation in India, and whilst some points have been clearly settled, others are still being slowly worked out. As the matter stands at present, it may be safely said that all separate property is liable for the debts of the owner, both in his lifetime and after his death in the hands of his heirs. The same may be said of the share in the family property of the member of a Dayabhaga family, of which share he is the owner. So also the family property under both the Dayabhaga and Mitacshara is liable as a whole for the debts incurred on behalf of the family as a whole. As regards the question of the liability of the family property for the separate debts of the members of a Mitacshara family, the courts have held that the sons must pay their father's debts. Of course illegality would be an answer to the claims of the creditors against the heirs, just as it would be an answer to the claim against the original debtor; but there is some authority for saying that a debt contracted for an immoral though not an illegal purpose would not be enforced against the heir. According to modern decisions also, if judgment and execution on a separate debt are obtained against the member of a Mitacshara family, the share which would fall to him upon a partition may by process of law be set apart and sold for the benefit of the creditor. Maintenance.