The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code in adding new trustees as parties, and the liability of the defendants for the depreciation of Government promissory-notes.

Phillips, J.

1. This is an appeal by the trustees of the Pachayappas Charities to recover rent from the respondents. The appeal was filed by all the nine trustees, but, since the appeal was filed, two of the appellant-trustees have died and one has retired. Of the two trustees who died, one died only on 21st March 1915, and, therefore, there is plenty of time to bring in his legal representative or the person on whom his interest has devolved; but objection is taken by the respondents that No. 6, Mr. Ethiraja Mudaliar, having died in 1923, and No. 5, Sir P.T. Thiagaraja Chettiar, having retired on 29th April 1924, the application to bring in the three trustees who have since been elected on the Board is out of time and that, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed in limine. The contention for the respondents is that the new trustees who have been appointed by election to fill the places of those who have died or retired are their legal representatives within the meaning of Section 2, Clause (11), of the Civil P.C., but in that section we find that " legal representative" included " where a party sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued." When Mr. Ethiraja Mudaliar died, his estate as trustee devolved on no one, unless it can be deemed to have devolved on the surviving trustees, who are parties to this appeal. Certainly it cannot be said that his estate devolved on his death on a person who was subsequently elected to fill his place. The act of the electors can certainly confer no retrospective power on the person elected so as to vest the estate of the deceased in him. So far as No. 5 is concerned his office became vacant by retirement and not by death. On the date of his retirement, the person subsequently elected to succeed him was certainly not his legal representative within the meaning of Section 2, Clause(11), Civil P.C. Consequently these persons, now sought to be added as appellants, do not come within the meaning of legal representative." For the appellants it is contended that Order 22, Rule 10 is applicable and I see no reason why it should not be so. The estate of the deceased trustees has devolved on these persons by the act of the electors done in pursuance of the scheme framed by this Court, and it appears to me that it is a case of devolution of the interest during the pendency of a suit. A similar view was held by a Bench of this Court in Sundaresam Chettiar v. Viswanatha Pandara Sannadhi A.I.R. 1922 Mad.402 and by another Judge in Ratnam Pillai v. Nataraja Desikar A.I.R. 1924 Mad.

615. I see no reason to differ from the view and hold that these persons can be added as parties under Order 22, Rule 10. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to discuss the further question whether the trustees who have all along been on record can be allowed to continue the appeal on behalf of the whole body of trustees without adding the trustees subsequently elected.

2. Coming to the merits of the appeal, two points are argued. The appellants claim firstly the loss which they have suffered owing to the depreciation of Government promissory-notes deposited by the defendants in respect of the lease which they obtained from the appellants. The second question relates to the amount of water-rates payable by the defendants. As regards the second point I may say that, on a construction of the lease, defendants are liable to pay water-rate for water taken to punja lands; for water taken for second crop on nanja lands; and for water taken to poramboke. The learned Judge has only considered one of the provisions of the lease which relates to poramboke, but does not appear to have considered the earlier clauses at all, and the learned Judges judgment is not supported by the respondents vakil who admits that the construction put upon the document by him is incorrect. In this respect, the Munsifs decree must be restored.

3. The more important point is t