Limitation and suretyship: failure to sue the principal debtor does not discharge the surety, while a barred debt cannot bind sons on survivorship property.

A suit against the sons of a deceased trustee failed because the property proceeded against was joint family property by survivorship, not the trustee's general estate, and a barred debt could not be enforced on the same footing against them. On suretyship, mere failure of the creditor to sue the principal debtor within limitation did not discharge the sureties, because limitation bars the remedy without extinguishing the underlying debt and mere forbearance to sue does not release a surety. The dismissal against the sons was affirmed, while the decree on the surety-related claim was set aside and remitted for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit against the sons of the deceased trustee was barred by limitation and whether the property sought to be proceeded against could be treated as the deceased trustee's general estate; (ii) whether the sureties were discharged because the creditor failed to sue the principal debtor within the period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the suit against the sons of the deceased trustee was barred by limitation and whether the property sought to be proceeded against could be treated as the deceased trustee's general estate.

Analysis: The claim against the sons was founded on the alleged liability arising from the father's breach of trust and on the Hindu law liability of sons for a father's debts. The property proceeded against was joint family property passing by survivorship, and was not the "general estate" of the deceased trustee within the meaning of the applicable limitation article. The suit against the father was already barred, and a barred debt could not be enforced against the sons on the same footing.

Conclusion: The suit against the sons was not maintainable and stood dismissed on limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the sureties were discharged because the creditor failed to sue the principal debtor within the period of limitation.

Analysis: The governing provisions on suretyship drew a distinction between discharge of the principal debtor and mere lapse of the creditor's remedy. Mere omission to sue within the limitation period did not extinguish the debt or discharge the principal debtor, and mere forbearance to sue was expressly stated not to discharge the surety. The surety could protect himself by paying the debt and becoming subrogated to the creditor's rights. On that basis, the earlier contrary view was not accepted.

Conclusion: The sureties were not discharged merely because the creditor had not sued the principal debtor within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal against the sons was affirmed, but the decree concerning the other defendants was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal according to law on the surety-related claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere failure of the creditor to sue the principal debtor within the period of limitation does not, by itself, discharge the surety, because limitation bars the remedy without extinguishing the underlying personal debt.

---