JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J., Stevens, J. and Geidt, J. - I am unable to see how the estoppel suggested by the Court below arises in this case. In 1884, two persons, as I understand, mortgaged certain property : in 1889 three persons execute a lease in favour of the present Appellant's father, under which lease the lessors purport to demise certain shares in certain land. As between the lessors and lessee, under that lease, it may well be that the lessee, who is now represented by the present Appellant, is estopped from saying that, at the date of that lease, the share mentioned in it was not the share of the lessors. That may be so. But the Court below has held that because be took the lease five years afterwards he is estopped from showing what share of the property was comprised in the mortgage five years before. I am unable to accept that view. I do not see why he should not be allowed to show--especially seeing that the mortgagors under the mortgage and the lessors under the lease, are not identical--what was included in the mortgage of 1884. In my opinion the Court below was wrong in saying that there was any estoppel as against him. As regards the point of limitation, I think the Court below was right. The case does not fall within sec. 22 of the Limitation Act. Two sons were placed upon the record in substitution for and as the heirs of their deceased father: subsequently it transpired that the deceased father had not died intestate, but had left a Will appointing one of such sons his executor. That son was originally placed upon the record as one of the heirs of his father and all that has been done is to make the record accurate by placing him there as executor instead of as one of the heirs. I do not think that is an addition of a new Defendant within the meaning of sec. 22 and that view is supported by the case of Saminatha v. Muthayya I. L. R. 15 Mad. 417 (1892). 2. The result is that the case must go back to the lower Appellate Court with this intimation of our opinion. Costs will abide the result.