Full Judgment
1. The only question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff brought the suit against first and second defendants as representatives of one Kailasanadha (Pandara Sannadhi), the adhinastom or trustee of the temple at Vadaranyam, stating that the money was due on account of certain land purchased by Kailasanadha for the benefit of the temple. First defendant having died, the suit was proceeded with against second defendant alone as trustee of the temple. He pleaded that there were also other trustees who should be included as defendants, alleging, at the same time, that the property was purchased by Kailasanadha for the benefit of his own family. Under orders of the District Munsif, the others named by second defendant were made co-defendants. They also pleaded that the property was bought by Kailasanadha for his own benefit, and not for the temple. There-unon plaintiff, with the permission of the Court, amended the plaint and prayed for Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 being removed from the suit, and for a personal decree against second defendant alone.
2. Second defendant then contended that the suit, as amended, was time-barred, and relied on Section 22 of the Limitation Act.
3. We observe that the second defendant was a party on the record from the very commencement, and the question, whether the amendment ought to have been allowed or not, is not an objection taken.
4. The effect of the amendment was not to add a new person as defendant, but to alter the ground on which a person, already a defendant, was to be held liable, plaintiff accepting the defendant's contention that the purchase had been made on behalf of his own family, and not on behalf of the temple.
6. Having regard to Section 22, we are of opinion that it is not intended to apply to a case in which the ground on which the original defendant is sought to be made liable is merely shifted, without new persons being included as defendants, the intention being not to take away from a person newly brought in as a defendant the benefit which the Act would give him were a suit instituted against him on that date. The decision in Ganpat Pandurang v. Adarji Dadabhai I.L.R. 3 Bom. 312 tends to support this view, see page 321 of the Report.