JUDGMENT G. Kumara Pillai, J. 1. In this appeal filed by defendant 2 against the final decree in a partition suit, two points alone merit consideration. 2. During the course of the suit some assets of the joint family were made use of for making an acquisition on behalf of the family and that acquisition was directed to be partitioned by the final decree. The acquisition was made under Ext. A 7 in 1939. The final decree was passed on 20-6-1956. Some of the properties acquired under Ext. A 7 was in the possession of defendant 2 and the plaintiff for some years and under the provisions of the final decree the profits which they derived from those properties during the periods they were in possession of the same have to be divided between the plaintiff , and defendants 1 and 2. On account of this direction defendant 2 is liable to make good to the estate Rs. 180 being profits from items 5 to 8 of Ext. A 7 received in the Malabar year 1115, Rs. 327-8-0 being profits from item 15 in Ext. A 7 for 5 years from 1939, and Rs. 12,841 being profits from items 17 to 20 of Ext. A 7 for 16 years from 1939 to 1955. The first point urged by the appellant's counsel was that the liability of defendant 2 for these amounts is barred by limitation, his contention being that defendant 2 could not be made liable for any amounts received more than six years prior to the date of the decree. We are unable to accept this contention. A claim can be said to be barred in a suit only if that claim had arisen before the date of suit. A claim for mesne profits which arose during the course of the suit cannot be barred by limitation before the date of the decree in that suit. It is a pendente lite claim, and the profits realised by one of the parties to the partition suit is an asset which has to be partitioned by the decree. 3. The second ground urged by the appellant's counsel is more substantial. Under the decree plaintiff has to recover his costs up to the date of the preliminary decree other than cost of stamp papers from the estate and the cost of the stamp papers have to be borne by the sharers equally. 3. The second ground urged by the appellant's counsel is more substantial. Under the decree plaintiff has to recover his costs up to the date of the preliminary decree other than cost of stamp papers from the estate and the cost of the stamp papers have to be borne by the sharers equally. The cost of the stamp paper was Rs. 1,553-3-0. In respect of this amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from defendant 2 a sum of Rs. 517-11-8 alone. His other costs before the preliminary decree amount to Rs. 153-6-0, and as per the decretal portion he has to recover the same from the estate. But in drawing up the decree the lower court has added the cost of the stamp paper and the plaintiff's other costs and made defendant 2 liable to the plaintiff for one third of the total of the two amounts and allowed the plaintiff to recover from defendant 2 a sum of Rs. 568-13-8. This is clearly wrong and contrary to the terms of the decretal portion of the judgment. Paragraph 14 of the decree which reads "That the respondents 1 and 2 each do pay the petitioner Rs. 568-13-8 by way of contribution for his cause of the suit until the preliminary decree and Rs. 210-0-0 also on account of value of stamp papers produced by him for engrossing this final decree" has therefore to be amended. We direct that the said paragraph be amended as follows: "That respondents 1 and 2 each do pay the petitioner Rs. 517-11-8 by way of contribution on account of the cost of the stamp papers and Rs. 210-0-0 also on account of value of stamp papers purchased by him for engrossing the lower court's final decree and that the plaintiff shall realise his other costs up to the date of the preliminary decree, namely, Rs. 153-6-0 from the estate". 4. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated in paragraph 3 above and dismissed in all other respects.