Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (November 24, 1913), reversing a decree of the Additional Judge of Hardoi. The suit was instituted on November 15, 1910, by the appellants as reversionary heirs of one Darshan Singh, who died on November 17, 1898, against the respondents for possession of certain property which had belonged to Darshan Singh. By a deed dated July 20, 1898, the material provisions of which appear from the judgment of their Lordships, Darshan Singh had dedicated the whole of his property to the temple of the respondent Thakur, and had provided that the other respondents should be managers after the donees death and in that capacity should enjoy half the net income. Law. Rep. 44 Ind. App. 187 ( 1916- 1917) Jadu Nath Singh V. Thakur Sita Ramji 58 The Additional Judge of Hardoi held that under the deed the property did not pass to the idol but was merely charged for the expenses of the temple to the extent of half the profits. He accordingly made a decree in the appellants favour subject to their defraying those expenses to the extent of half the income. Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. The learned judges held that on the true construction of the deed the corpus of the property was given to the idol and dedicated to the purposes of the temple, and that if there was any charge it was in favour of the widowed members of the donees family. They further were of opinion that the fact that the donee did not effect a mutation of names in his lifetime was not material seeing that the rents of the endowed property fell due after his death. Finally they held that the property vested in the idol from the date of the deed and that the suit not having been instituted within twelve years of that date was barred under the Indian Limitation Act (IX. of 1908), Sched. I., art. 144. 1917. April 24. Sir William Garth and S. V. Sen, for the appellants. Although in form there was a complete gift to the idol the real intention was to benefit the donees family and to secure the property from creditors. of 1908), Sched. I., art. 144. 1917. April 24. Sir William Garth and S. V. Sen, for the appellants. Although in form there was a complete gift to the idol the real intention was to benefit the donees family and to secure the property from creditors. The donee did not effect mutation of names nor act upon the deed in any way. If it operates at all it merely creates a charge upon the property for the temple expenses to the extent of half the income. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Sonatun By sack v. Juggutsoondaree Dossee (8 Moo. Ind. Ap. 66.) and Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee. (L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 182.) [Reference was also made to Brojosoondery Debia v. Luchmee Koonwarree (( 1875) 15 Beng. L. R. 176 n.).] The suit was not barred by limitation, because there was no adverse possession until the death of the donee. De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the respondents, were not called upon. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE. Their Lordships think this is a very plain case, and they propose to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to the Sovereign. The whole question arises on the construction of a deed of endowment executed by one Darshan Singh on July 20, 1898. There had been a joint family, and he and his brother, the heads of the joint family, had made a joint will and the brother had died before him. Darshan Singh was desirous by this date of making a disposition of the property, which was now his as head of the joint family, so that it should be devoted to religious purposes, and he executed this deed and afterwards, by registering it, showed that it represented an intention which he desired to treat as carried into execution. Darshan Singh was desirous by this date of making a disposition of the property, which was now his as head of the joint family, so that it should be devoted to religious purposes, and he executed this deed and afterwards, by registering it, showed that it represented an intention which he desired to treat as carried into execution. The deed begins by saying that he dedicates his whole property to and in favour of the temple of Sita Ramji; then he goes on to say that during his lifetime, he himself will manage and administer the estate of the temple ; after that, he provides that his daughter-in-law is to act as manager and administrator, and, after her, his own daughters, Musammat Janki and Musammat Lilawati, and a daughter of his deceased brother shall jointly remain managers and administrators, and shall live in his house and properly manage the estate. The deed proceeds " The dwelling-house will remain reserved for the abode and comfort of the mutawalli and manager belonging to the family, who should occupy the same." Then, after the payment of Government revenue and the expenses of collection, half the net income is to be applied towards the performance of religious ceremonies and charities, the offering of food to the deity, and the repairs of the temple. The remaining half is to go to the support of the managers of the temple belonging to the family, that is to say, of those who are members of the family. Then, after the daughter-in-law and the daughters, any issue born of those daughters were to be the mutawalli and managers of the endowment and the temple. If the daughter Law. Rep. 44 Ind. App. 187 ( 1916- 1917) Jadu Nath Singh V. Thakur Sita Ramji 59 of his deceased brother, who is still capable of bearing a male child, gives birth to a male child, he was to be the manager thereof like Darshan Singh himself, and, if not, the daughters of the daughters. Then, " Half the net income shall be expended in a proper manner in the upkeep of the temple, and an account of the same shall be kept by the manager, which the Government for the time being shall inspect and supervise? Then, " Half the net income shall be expended in a proper manner in the upkeep of the temple, and an account of the same shall be kept by the manager, which the Government for the time being shall inspect and supervise? Then, " None of the managers or administrators shall have any power to alienate the house and the property endowed." Then, if none of the persons enumerated remain, the Government is to act as the manager and administrator of the temple and property endowed, and in that event the whole of the income of the property is to be expended for the purposes of the temple after the expenses of the management of the estate are paid and the expenses of the temple shall be defrayed in the manner the Government for the time being may deem fit. The question that arises is this The heirs, the persons who would succeed, were it not for the deed, as being the nearest male relations of Darshan Singh, claim that this is not a real endowment of the property to the temple. If it had been a real endowment, they admit that, according to Hindu law, it was a valid disposition of Darshan Singhs property. But they say " No, it is not a reality; it is merely a mode, a specious device, of making a provision for the daughter-in-law and daughters which Darshan Singh could not otherwise have made," and they say it is bad as against them. The answer made is that the deed ought to be read just as it appears, and there is no reason why it should not be construed as meaning simply what the language says, a gift for the maintenance of the idol and the temple, under which the idol is to take the property and, for the rest, the family are to be the administrators and managers, and to be remunerated with half the income of the property. If the income of the property had been large, a question might have been raised, in the circumstances, as throwing some doubt upon the integrity of the settlors intention, but, as the entire income is only 800 rupees, it is obvious that the payment to these ladies is of the most trifling kind, and certainly not an amount which one would expect in a case of that kind. Now it is said that, according to previous decisions of this Board, there is authority for reading the terms of this deed in some way different from what they would naturally appear to mean. We have been referred to a decision of Sir George Turner in a case of Sonatun By sack v. Juggutsoondaree Dossee(8 Moo. Ind. Ap. 66.) and to Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee. (L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 182.) On looking at those cases, the first was a case in which Sir George Turner held that, although nominally there was a gift at the beginning to the idol, that gift was so cut down by subsequent disposition as to leave it clear that the subsequent disposition ought to prevail rather than the earlier one, and that consequently there was no gift to the idol such as to make the property pass as an absolute and entire interest in its favour. The second case was also a decision of this Board, and came to very much the same thing. It was a question of the construction of a will, taken as a whole, and it was j said there was not a complete gift to the idol, it was cut down by the subsequent disposition to the family. Here there is no such cutting down. There is, in the beginning, a clear expression of an intention to apply the whole estate for the benefit of the idol and the temple, and then the rest is only a gift to the idol sub modo by a direction that of the whole, which had already been given, part is to be applied for the upkeep of the idol itself and the repair of the temple, and the other is to go for the upkeep of the managers. There was no reason why the disponer should not nominate the members of his family as his managers, and he has done so. And there is nothing in that which militates against the propriety of his earmarking a certain part of the money to remunerate them as managers so long as they should so continue. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, which proceeded substantially upon these grounds, is right, and they will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.