Court Dismisses Appeal: Suit Barred by Limitation Due to Late Addition of 5th Defendant After Interest Transfer

The appeal was dismissed with costs by the court. The case centered on whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation against the 5th defendant due to a devolution of interest during the suit's pendency. The court ruled that the transfer of interest to the 5th defendant occurred before the 4th defendant was added to the suit, and the application to add the 5th defendant was made after the limitation period had expired. The judgment emphasized that the limitation period is affected only when a new party is formally added to the suit, not merely by filing an application.

---

---

Issues:
- Limitation period regarding devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit
- Interpretation of Section 22 of the Limitation Act regarding adding a new party to a pending suit

Analysis:
1. The second appeal in question pertains to item No. 4 of the plaint, where the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on grounds of limitation. The crux of the matter lies in whether the suit is barred against the 5th defendant due to a devolution of interest during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed on 11th December 1919, and the 4th defendant had alienated the property to the 5th defendant before being added to the suit. The key argument revolves around whether this transfer occurred during the pendency of the suit, thereby affecting the limitation period against the plaintiff.

2. The judgment delves into the timing of events concerning the addition of parties and the transfer of property interest. It clarifies that a suit can only relate to property in the possession of or claimed by the defendant. The crux is that the suit cannot extend to property not owned by the defendants on record at the time of filing. The application to add the 5th defendant was made on 14th June 1920, after the 12-year period from Thanjammal's death had expired. The interpretation of Section 22 of the Limitation Act plays a crucial role in determining when the limitation period ceases to run concerning the addition of a new party to a pending suit.

3. The legal analysis emphasizes that the mere filing of an application to add a party does not halt the running of the limitation period; rather, it is the actual addition of the party to the suit that impacts the timeline. The judgment underscores the importance of the wording of Section 22(1) of the Limitation Act in deeming a suit to be instituted only when a new party is made a party. The application date alone does not suffice to stop the limitation period. The judgment distinguishes between the filing of a plaint and the addition of a new party, highlighting that the latter requires the party to be formally added to the suit to affect the limitation period.

4. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed with costs, as the transfer of interest to the 5th defendant occurred before the 4th defendant was added to the suit, and the application to add the 5th defendant was made after the expiration of the limitation period. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the legal principles surrounding the limitation period in cases involving the devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit and the interpretation of Section 22 of the Limitation Act regarding the addition of new parties to pending suits.

---