Wallis, C.J.

1. The question in this Second Appeal is whether a son can be made liable, during his fathers life-time, as held by the District Judge, on a promissory note executed by his father after partition in renewal of a note executed by the father before partition. One of the contentions raised by Mr. Parthasarathy for the appellant is that since the recent decision of the Judicial Committee in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh (1917) L.R. 441 I.A. 126 payment of the fathers debts cannot be enforced by suit against the sons during the fathers life-time. This is a most important question because, if the contention is right, the recent decision involves the overruling of what has long been treated in this and other High Courts as a settled rule of every day application, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to satisfy ourselves that this result is really involved in the recent decision.

2. Now there are two distinct and closely connected things, one, the fathers power to bind the sons shares by alienations during his life-time for debts not incurred for necessary purposes and not tainted with immorality, and the other, the creditors remedies by suit in respect of such debts a