1. The only question is whether the suit is barred by Limitation. The plaintiff brought the suit against 1st and 2nd defendants as representatives of one Kylasanadha Pandara Sannadhi, the Adhinastan or trustee of the temple at Vedaranyam stating that the money was due on account of certain land purchased by Kylasanadha for the benefit of the temple 1st defendant having died, the suit was proceeded with against 2nd 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 Kylasanadha for the benefit of his own family. Under orders of the District Munsif the others named by 2nd defendant were made co-defendants. They also pleaded that the property was bought by Kylasanadha for his own benefit, and not for the temple. Thereupon, plaintiff with the permission of the court, amended the plaint and prayed for defendants 3 to 8 being removed from the suit and for a personal decree against 2nd defendant alone.
2. 2nd 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 2nd 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.
5. 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 B. 312, lends support to this view–Sec p, 821.
6. We dismiss this appeal with costs.