History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.661

v4.c63.661

⁷⁵⁵ गृहीत्वा बन्धकं यत्र दर्शनस्य स्थितो भवेत् । विना पित्रा धनं तस्माद् दाप्यः स्यात्तदृणं सुतः ॥ कात्या. 534, q. by the Mit. on Yāj. II. 54, अपरार्क p. 656. Vide *Choudhuri Govind Chandra v. Hayagriba* 10 Patna 94, where it was held that when a father stood surety for the honesty or good behaviour of another as guardian for a minor's property, the son was not bound to pay the suretyship debt of the father. In *Kottapalli v. Kanuparti* 58 Mad. 375, where the father executed a surety bond that a certain judgment debtor would file an insolvency petition within a specified period and the debtor failed to do so, it was held that the guarantee was one for confidence or honesty and that the sons were not liable on the father's death. Similarly in *Dhir Narain v. Shiva Sahay* A. I. R. 1935 Patna 127 it was held that sons are not liable under Hindu Law where the father stood surety for appearance only. In *Narayan v. Venkatacharya* 6 Bom. L. R. 434 it was held that under the law of the Mitākṣarā a grandson is not liable to pay a debt which his grandfather contracted as a surety unless the latter in accepting the liability of a surety received some consideration for it.