Madhavan Nair, J.

1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants. The second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of money due under a promissory note, dated 15th October 1923, executed by one Lakshmikantham deceased, the husband of defendant 1. Defendant 1 was sued as Lakshmikanthams legal representative. Defendant 2 is the daughter of defendants 1 and defendant 3 is defendant 2sson. Lakshmikantham died in July 1924, leaving a will Ex. B. Under it defendants 1 and 2 got a life interest in a house. Defendant 1 also got a life interest in a share of the scheduled property, defendant 3 getting two shares. It is not necessary to refer to the other items of the will. The suit was filed on 12th October 1926, just three days before the suit note became barred. It was originally instituted only against defendant 1. She pointed out that she had no interest in the properties and that defendants 2 and 3 should be made parties to the suit. The plaintiff then amended the plaint and made them parties on 3rd May 1927. It will be observed that by this time the promissory note had become barred. Section 22, Clause 1, Lim. Act, says:

Where, after the institution of a