1. Learned counsel for the appellants in this second appeal contends that unlike a son the grandsons of Khuman deceased are not liable for a debt contracted by Khuman as surety unless it is proved that consideration was received by the grandfather for accepting the suretyship. This distinction between the liability of a son and that of a grandson was made in Narayan v. Venkatacharya, 28 Bom. 408 : (6 Bom. L. b. 434). This decision is noted in Mulla's Hindu Law without any comment upon it. In Gour's Hindu Code (Edn. 4) an opinion is expressed at p. 515 that this decision is not correct. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in Masitulla v. Damodar Prasad, 53 I. A. 204 : (A. I. R. (13) 1926 P. C. 105) which lays down that under Mitakshara law the liability of the sons, grandsons and great grandsons is co-extensive, this Bombay Court decision to the extent that it lays down a different rule for the sons and grandsons is regarded by Mr. S. V. Gupta in his Hindu Law (1947 Edn.) at p. 738 to have been overruled.

2. In Mahabirprasad v. Sri Narayan, A. I. R. (5) 1918 Pat. 345 : (3 Pat. L. j. 396) and in Balkrishna Sahai v. Syam Sunder Sahai, A. I. R. (7) 1920 Pat. 201 : (56