Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee, the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, is the appellant. 2. Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal, a couple, executed Ext.A2 (Ext.B8) Will dated 8.2.1954 under which after the lifetime of their heir apparent Parvathi Ammal, the property would go as a dedication to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor. For convenience, we would refer to that document hereinafter as Ext.A2. Chellammal predeceased Parameswara Iyer. Ext.A2 Will dealt with two items. The plaint schedule property is item No.1 in that document. After Chellammal's death on 15.8.1957, Parameswara Iyer executed Ext.B9 Will dated 10.3.1967 cancelling his previous bequest as per Ext.A2. Ext.B9 Will stipulated that if the testator does not alienate the property during his lifetime, it will devolve on the heir apparent Parvathi Ammal and if she decides to sell it, 1/4th of the sale price in the event of such sale has to be given to Guruvayoor Devaswom, with the direction to utilise the interest derived from it for performing pooja in the Mandalam season. Parameswara Iyer died on 24.6.1969. The sole heir, Parvathi Ammal came into possession. Thereafter, she assigned the plaint schedule property to the first defendant as per Ext.B11 dated 18.4.1977. Later, she died on 5.1.1991. 3. Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee filed the suit seeking a declaration that it has absolute title with respect to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession on the strength of such title after demolition and removal of the buildings and structures thereon, with mesne profits. Alternatively, it was sought that if the Court finds that the assignment deed in favour of the first defendant is only voidable, a decree may be passed setting aside that document and allowing recovery of possession of the property on the strength of the title of the plaintiff. It sued contending that Ext.B9 Will is void and Ext.A2 being a joint and mutual Will, could not be cancelled by a co-testator who survived the other and had accepted the legacy. Plaintiff contended that the intention of the testators as per the terms of Ext.A2 Will is that the plaint schedule property would go as a dedication to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor after the lifetime of the testators and their heir apparent Parvathi Ammal. Plaintiff contended that the intention of the testators as per the terms of Ext.A2 Will is that the plaint schedule property would go as a dedication to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor after the lifetime of the testators and their heir apparent Parvathi Ammal. Plaintiff pleaded that it did not take steps to recover the property during the lifetime of Parvathi Ammal since she had a life estate as per Ext.A2 joint Will of her parents. According to the plaintiff, Parvathi Ammal thereafter left the place and her whereabouts were not known and it was only on 13.2.1997 that plaintiff came to know that Parvathi Ammal was dead. Later, they enquired and on 17.9.1999, they came to know that Parvathi Ammal had died on 5.1.1991. Plaintiff pleaded that upon the death of Parvathi Ammal, the dedication in favour of Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor as per Ext.A2 stood absolute and the plaintiff, as the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee was, therefore, entitled to have the plaint schedule property recovered as the duly authorised trustee - Guruvayoor Devaswom. 4. The first defendant, the assignee of Parvathi Ammal, admitted Ext.A2 Will and contended that as per Parameswara Iyer's Ext.B9 Will, the property devolved on Parvathi Ammal and she was entitled to alienate, subject to the terms stated in Ext.B9 as to apportionment of the consideration as noted above. The first defendant further pleaded that he purchased the property from Parvathi Ammal on 18.4.1977 pursuant to an agreement dated 5.1.1977 and thereafter, he has title to and possession thereof. According to him, he evicted three tenants who were in the suit property and had obtained mutation and transfer of the revenue records in his name. He pleaded that he constructed a multi-storied building in the property after obtaining licence from Cochin Corporation and had also obtained permission for putting up additional constructions. According to him, he had intimated the plaintiff about the transaction and about the amount of Rs.22,000/- being 1/4th of the consideration of Rs.88,000/-payable to Guruvayoor Devaswom in terms of Ext.B9 Will of Parameswara Iyer. He pleaded that following different communications, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to execute a release deed and obtain the said amount of Rs.22,000/- and as per Ext.B6 letter dated 26.5.1979, the plaintiff wanted him to pay the amount first and then to execute the release deed (ozhimuri). He pleaded that following different communications, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to execute a release deed and obtain the said amount of Rs.22,000/- and as per Ext.B6 letter dated 26.5.1979, the plaintiff wanted him to pay the amount first and then to execute the release deed (ozhimuri). He also pleaded having perfected title by adverse possession tracing hostile animus from 18.4.1977, the date on which he came into possession following Ext.A3 (Ext.B11) sale deed by Parvathi Ammal in his favour and pleading that such possession was known to the plaintiff. 5. The court below held that Ext.A2 is a joint and mutual Will by Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal and in terms thereof, Parameswara Iyer had no authority to execute Ext.B9 and therefore, that Will is void. However, it held that the terms of bequest in Ext.A2 were absolute and not in derogation of the absolute title of Parvathi Ammal which went to her in terms of that bequest by her parents and she, therefore, had the right to transfer the property obtained by her under that Will. Thus, the court below upheld Ext.A3 (Ext.B11) sale deed by Parvathi Ammal in favour of the first defendant. It also further held that in the light of Ext.B4, the cause of action for the plaintiff had arisen from 1977 and hence, the suit is barred by adverse possession and limitation. The court below also held that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee represented by its Administrator cannot be held to have the right to sue and if at all the bequest was available in favour of the deity, it cannot be represented by the Guruvayoor Devaswom since normally the person authorised to represent the deity will be the 'Ooralan' or such other 'sthanees'. Hence the suit laid without the deity in the array of parties was held to be not maintainable. The claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits was also declined and the suit was dismissed. 6. Hence the suit laid without the deity in the array of parties was held to be not maintainable. The claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits was also declined and the suit was dismissed. 6. In this appeal by the plaintiff, it is argued by its learned counsel that the finding that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee is unsustainable in law having regard to the statutory provisions that govern that Devaswom and that the interpretation and construction of Ext.A2, the joint and mutual Will of Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal, is wholly erroneous and the construction and interpretation of that Will, as placed by the court below are never available having regard to the clear terms of that Will. The finding that the suit is barred by adverse possession is also criticised on the plea that if Ext.A2 did not give absolute title to Parvathi Ammal, there was no question of recognising any transfer by her and the so-called transfer made by her to the first defendant as per Ext.A3 (Ext.B11) would only be co-extensive with her life estate which would be terminated only upon her death and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. It is further argued that there is absolutely no evidence on record to uphold the plea of adverse possession as against the interest of a deity, a minor in law. It is also argued that the material evidence do not establish any of the necessary ingredients to uphold the plea of adverse possession. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the clause of Ext.A2 inhibited Parvathi Ammal; the heir apparent, from transferring the legacy inter vivos and the Will operated in such a manner that after Parvathi Ammal’s lifetime, the property would go as a dedication to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor and hence recoverable by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the clause of Ext.A2 inhibited Parvathi Ammal; the heir apparent, from transferring the legacy inter vivos and the Will operated in such a manner that after Parvathi Ammal’s lifetime, the property would go as a dedication to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor and hence recoverable by the plaintiff. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and of this Court in Ambunhi v. Ganesh Bhandary [1995 (2) KLT 776 (SC)], Janaki v. Krishnan & Others [(1964) I KLR 4], Cloyi v. Peravankutty [1995 (2) KLT 678], Krishnan Nair v. Vasudeva Panicker [ 2004 (3) KLT 124 ] and Prasanth v. Kalliani [ 2007 (2) KLT 992 ], it was argued that the last among the clauses of the bequest is that which would survive and the terms of Ext.A2 Will executed by Chellammal and Parameswara Iyer show that it is a joint and mutual Will and there is an agreement between them evidenced thereby, to the effect that neither of them would breach that testament by revocation or otherwise. 7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents-defendants argued that the clear terms of Ext.A2 Will by Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal conferred absolute title on Parvathi Ammal and therefore, even if Ext.B9 Will was held to be void, Parvathi Ammal had derived absolute title on the demise of Chellammal and Parameswara Iyer and hence, she had the power to alienate the plaint schedule property to the first defendant. It is argued that the recitals in that Will touching devotion and offering are merely expressions of the wishes of the testators, intended to operate only in the event of Parvathi Ammal not alienating the suit property during her lifetime. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the finding in this regard by the court below is unassailable. The other findings of the court below are also supported and it is argued that the appeal deserves only to be dismissed. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the finding in this regard by the court below is unassailable. The other findings of the court below are also supported and it is argued that the appeal deserves only to be dismissed. The learned senior counsel for the respondents further argued that the terms of Ext.A2 contain bequest in absolute terms in favour of Parvathi Ammal, the heir apparent, and what is expressed by Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal as dedication to Lord Krishna does not contain any term of bequest and, if at all there is any term of bequest, that event was conceived to happen only if Parvathi Ammal; the heir apparent, left the legacy without dealing it by making any transfer inter vivos. Reliance was placed on Rameshwar Bakhsh v. Balraj Kuar [AIR 1935 Privy Council 187], K.Govindan v. T.T.Lakshmi Amma [ AIR 1959 SC 71 ], Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad [ (2002) 2 SCC 468 ], Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kanatham [ (2010) 13 SCC 147 ], Narayanan Anandan v. Rakesh [ 1994 (1) KLT 475 ] and Kesavan Anandakumar v. Nangali Amma [ 1994 (1) KLT 927 ] to point out, among other things, that where under a Will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest and property to another, any subsequent bequest which is repugnant to the first bequest would be invalid and where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the property after the death of his wife. 8. Section 2(i) of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short, defines “Temple” for the purpose of that Act to mean the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor. Section 2(e) of the Act defines “Devaswom” to mean the Temple, and includes its properties and endowments and the subordinate temples attached to it, while clause (c) of Section 2 defines “Committee” to mean the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Act. Subsection 1 of Section 3 provides that the administration, control and management of the Devaswom shall be vested in a Committee constituted in the manner thereinafter provided. Subsection 1 of Section 3 provides that the administration, control and management of the Devaswom shall be vested in a Committee constituted in the manner thereinafter provided. These provisions taken together show that the administration and control of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor and its properties and endowments stand vested by the operation of that statute in the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee. Clause (c) of Section 10, which enumerates duties of the Committee, obliges that it shall be the duty of the Committee to ensure, among other things, the safe custody of the funds and the preservation and management of the properties vested in the Temple. Section 28(1) of the Act provides that the Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties and assets belonging to the Devaswom. In fact, Section 28 provides authority for statutory intervention by the Collector for summary eviction. It also prescribes a suit at the instance of any person for establishing his title to the property in such event. Therefore, it is the plaintiff Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee which is duty bound to and therefore, empowered to take all steps and actions, including for taking possession of immovable properties and other assets belonging to the Devaswom, that is to say, such properties and assets belonging to the Temple, thereby meaning, those properties and assets that become vested in the Devaswom by virtue of dedication or otherwise. The statutory provisions noted above show that the right to sue is clearly available with the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee in relation to properties which are asserted as having vested in the Devaswom by reason of dedication to the deity or otherwise. 9. The court below appears to have gone with the view that the suit as framed without the deity in the party array is not maintainable because “normally the person authorised to represent the deity will be the 'Ooralan' or such other 'sthanees'.” Now, reverting to the legislative history of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, it can be seen that a Scheme was framed by the High Court of Madras in Appeal Nos.211 and 212 of 1930. That was modified later by the District Court, South Malabar in O.S.No.1 of 1938. That was modified later by the District Court, South Malabar in O.S.No.1 of 1938. Under that Scheme, the administration, control and management of the Temple and its properties and endowments had been vested in the hereditary trustees, namely, the Zamorin Raja of Calicut and the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor. With passage of time, it was noticed by the State Legislature that the management of the Temple and its properties and endowments had deteriorated and a situation had arisen rendering it expedient to reorganize the scheme of management of the affairs of the Devaswom. Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1971 was, therefore, enacted. This Court by judgment in O.P.No.314 of 1973 held the provisions of that Act as inoperative being violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. It was thereafter that the 1978 Act was brought to streamline the legislation in tune with the constitutional prescriptions as noted in that judgment. There is no hereditary trustee and the management does not vest in any hereditary trustee or other such authorities now. The Zamorin Raja of Calicut and the Karanavan for the time being of the Mallisseri Illom at Guruvayoor, who were the hereditary trustees under the erstwhile Scheme, were brought in as members of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee provided for by Section 3 of the Act. The Thanthri of the Temple, who is the final authority in religious and spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom and whose decision on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom shall be final under Section 35 of the Act, is also an ex-officio member of the Committee. The Thanthri of the Temple, who is the final authority in religious and spiritual matters pertaining to the Devaswom and whose decision on all religious, spiritual, ritual or ceremonial matters pertaining to Devaswom shall be final under Section 35 of the Act, is also an ex-officio member of the Committee. The Constitution of the Committee as prescribed in Section 4 of the Act read with the provision in Section 3 regarding the incorporation of the Committee as well as the duties of the Committee and its entitlement to be in possession of Devaswom properties in terms of Sections 10 and 28 respectively, taken along with its highly regulated authority in relation to alienation of Devaswom properties as detailed in Section 11 of the Act, unequivocally go to show that right to sue for recovery of any item of property, whether immovable or movable, on behalf of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor and the presiding deity of that Temple or on behalf of any of the subordinate temples attached to that Temple or the deities of such subordinate temples lies with the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee along with the right to take recourse to statutory proceedings for obtaining possession in terms of Section 28 of the Act. Section 14 of the Act provides for appointment of Administrator and Section 17 provides that the Administrator shall be the secretary to the Committee and its chief executive officer. The Administrator is entitled to invoke sub-section 2 of Section 28 for delivery of possession even in case of obstruction. Duties and powers of the Committee as laid down in Sections 10 to 13 of the Act show that the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee is essentially, the trustee by its institution and acts as the statutory guardian of the temple and its assets on behalf of the deity as well. There is no other entity, either 'ooralan' or 'sthanee' that could sue to secure and preserve the assets of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the court below that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee represented by its Administrator is unsustainable and is liable to be reversed. We do so and hold that the suit is maintainable. 11. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the court below that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee represented by its Administrator is unsustainable and is liable to be reversed. We do so and hold that the suit is maintainable. 11. The next issue, around which revolves fate of this appeal, is as to what is the true effect of the terms of Ext.A2 Will. 12. It is not disputed before us that Ext.A2 is a joint Will of Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal. It deals with two items of properties. Item No.2 is a self-acquired property of Parameswara Iyer. Item No.1, which is the suit property, is an item that stood in the name of Chellammal. But, going by the declaration of Chellammal and Parameswara Iyer in that Will, it was acquired in the name of Chellammal by Parameswara Iyer and later, improvements, including additional buildings were made by Parameswara Iyer, who was a Vakil. 13. As enjoined in Section 82 of the Indian Succession Act, the meaning of any clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire instrument, and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each other. The Court should adopt that construction which will give effect to each and every disposition. All possible efforts should be made to give to the provisions of the Will an effective and consistent meaning. In construing the language of the Will, Court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair and is bound to bear in mind all circumstances which the testator would have taken into consideration while making the disposition. The true intention of the testator has to be gathered from the reading of the whole Will. The effort of the court must be to give effect to the expression made by the testator and not to make it inoperative. Every intention contained in the Will should, as far as possible, be given effect to. Section 85 of the Indian Succession Act enjoins that no part of a Will shall be rejected as destitute of meaning if it is possible to put a reasonable construction upon it. Every intention contained in the Will should, as far as possible, be given effect to. Section 85 of the Indian Succession Act enjoins that no part of a Will shall be rejected as destitute of meaning if it is possible to put a reasonable construction upon it. As noted by the court below, the settled principle of law that the bequest has to be interpreted or construed taking into account all its recitals as a whole and then determining the priorities of bequest, if any, without in any manner impairing the true intention of the testator or testators. 14. Here, we are dealing with the Will jointly executed by an elderly couple. The husband, as already stated, was a Vakil. He was aged 70 years in 1954 when the Will was executed. His wife Chellammal was then 62 years old. They have described themselves as “paradeshi brahmins”, i.e., identified as belonging to those who had migrated to the place where they were living at the time of the bequest in 1954. That was then part of Travancore-Cochin State. Parvathi Ammal, their heir apparent, lived with them. The couple were elderly and had taken note of the fact that old age prompts them of the necessity to make a Will. The Will copiously recites about the ardent devotion of the couple and daughter Parvathi Ammal to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor. It states that at one portion of the front portico of the building in item No.1, there are pictures of different forms of the divine as believed by that family. The recitals emphatically disclose the religious and devotional fervor that they had, and, that they stood with the firm faith in the presence of perceivable divinity in that part of the house. Parvathi Ammal is also noted by her parents as one who was ardently devoted and with an exceptional religious mind and commitment. It is stated that Parvathy Ammal had been experiencing the sacred sight of Almighty in all the idols on both sides of the half-wall in the portico of their home in item No.1 where the elderly couple and their daughter were residing. Such experience of Parvathi Ammal, the daughter, was recorded by her parents in Ext.A2 Will as of such nature that it does not vanish even for a second, all the twenty four hours; not missing a single minute; for thirteen years. Such experience of Parvathi Ammal, the daughter, was recorded by her parents in Ext.A2 Will as of such nature that it does not vanish even for a second, all the twenty four hours; not missing a single minute; for thirteen years. It is also stated that God enjoins that the Lord's presence would be patently manifest thereon in those figures as long as the half-wall remains. It is recorded that the devout community from outside the home are graced with the divine sight at that place and the God's command is that the presence of Lord at that particular place cannot diminish even minutely, even if any damage is caused to the half-wall for reasons whatsoever. The testators had, therefore, conceived that the holy name ought to reverberate in the entire house where they reside, as it occurs in Guruvayoor Temple. They evinced their faith that the presence of Sree Guruvayoorappan prevails in that home and that it should be continued to be used even after the death of both of them and their daughter Parvathi for such purpose, since so much of divine vigour exists at the entire house location as to transform it into a great temple gradually. It was therefore necessary that even if Parvathi Ammal is not living at the time of the death of the last among the testators, item No.1 property in Ext.A2 Will and the buildings where they reside and other structures shall be vested in Sreekrishnaswamy (Sree Guruvayoorappan) in the Sree Guruvayoor Temple. Even if Parvathi Ammal lived after the lifetime of her parents, the same result was to be achieved. Accordingly, as regards item No.1 in Ext.A2, which is the plaint schedule property, it was agreed to by the testators as between them and determined by them that the temple authorities shall enjoy the absolute right to take possession of the properties and keep possession and take income from the properties, utilizing the income for the temple needs and for performing the holy namechanting in that house. The clear intention of the testators that surges out of the recitals as regards item No.1 in Ext.A2 is that the said properties, including the building which, to them, has hallowed existence in terms of religion, faith, worship etc. The clear intention of the testators that surges out of the recitals as regards item No.1 in Ext.A2 is that the said properties, including the building which, to them, has hallowed existence in terms of religion, faith, worship etc. were to be preserved by them during the currency of their lifetime and by their daughter during her lifetime if she were to survive both the testators, to be taken over by the temple authorities on behalf of Sreekrishnaswamy (Sree Guruvayoorappan). This is how the totality of the recitals in relation to item No.1 in Ext.A2 could be understood in the backdrop of the sociocultural religious setting of the family consisting of that elderly Brahmin couple and a not so young daughter fully devoted in the path of their resolute kinship with divinity in the form of Lord Guruvayoorappan. We cannot conceive that with such a frame of mind as Parameswara Iyer would have had while executing that Will, he would have ever thought of depriving or acting in breach of the absolute resoluteness that the couple and the daughter had in their inseparable link with divine aspirations and kinship with the divine in the form of Sreekrishnaswamy (Sree Guruvayoorappan). The parents recite in the Will of having known the continuous reverberating experience that the daughter has with divinity for a period of about thirteen years in the immediate precincts of their residence and the manner in which the said place was utilised in furtherance of religious and spiritual goals embedded and drenched in absolute faith. This predominant thrust of the intention of the testators discloses the identity of their minds and the mode hatched up by them to effectuate the need to provide for the continuing pulsation of their daughter Parvathi's kinship with the divine and to authorise the management of the dedication they made to Lord Sreekrishnan of Guruvayoor. The directions that the temple authorities shall enjoy the power to take possession, income and to appropriate and utilize for the designated purposes were to ensure the management of the dedicated assets. That dedication was subservient only to the life estate of the testators' daughter Parvathi Ammal. The directions that the temple authorities shall enjoy the power to take possession, income and to appropriate and utilize for the designated purposes were to ensure the management of the dedicated assets. That dedication was subservient only to the life estate of the testators' daughter Parvathi Ammal. Hence, we cannot but hold that Ext.A2 bequest contained a dedication by the testators, namely, Parameswara Iyer and Chellammal in favour of Lord Krishna (Sree Guruvayoorappan), the presiding deity of Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor in so far as the property listed as item No.1 in that Will is concerned. 15. The reasoning process adopted by the court below and one of the specific arguments addressed before us by the learned senior counsel for the respondents is that there are clear words of absolute bequest in favour of Parvathi Ammal, the daughter, and therefore, she had alienable interest and the legacy was such that it definitely conferred on her absolute title on the demise of Parameswara Iyer even if Ext.B9 were not to stand. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the bequest as regards item No.1 should be treated as having been clearly intended as an absolute legacy to the daughter. Though the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respondents appears to be attractive in the first blush, on a deeper consideration, on the basis of interpretation of Ext.A2 Will itself that argument would fail, for reasons we state hereinafter. 16. As already noted, Ext.A2 Will deals with two items of properties. Item No.1 was acquired in the name of Chellammal, statedly by Parameswara Iyer. They lived and enjoyed the continued basking in the hallowed kinship with the divine, living in the home in item No.1. Their living centred in such kinship and revolved evolving in their home in item No.1. Item No.2 was in the name of Parameswara Iyer. That item was not part of the immediate life scene of the couple and their heir apparent, though it was a material asset for them. While dealing with item No.2, in conspicuous contrast to the terms under which item No.1 was dealt with, the testators say that if item No.2 property is not transferred or sold during the lifetime of Parvathi Ammal and Chellammal, that item of property is bound and shall be vested with Sreekrishnaswamy of the Sree Guruvayoor Temple (Sree Guruvayoorappan). While dealing with item No.2, in conspicuous contrast to the terms under which item No.1 was dealt with, the testators say that if item No.2 property is not transferred or sold during the lifetime of Parvathi Ammal and Chellammal, that item of property is bound and shall be vested with Sreekrishnaswamy of the Sree Guruvayoor Temple (Sree Guruvayoorappan). How are we to understand this in contrast to the absence of such provision as regards item No.1, though the earlier part dealing with item No.2 also contains words which could, in the common course of arguments, be indicative of creation of absolute estate while making the legacy? On the one hand, we have the testators envisioning Parvathi Ammal or her mother Chellammal transferring or selling item No.2 during their lifetime and the bequest or dedication to Sree Guruvayoorappan is only if there is any left over in item No.2, after the currency of lifetime of Chellammal and Parvathi Ammal. On the other hand, in strict contrast to the aforesaid, is the fact that there is no such statement where the parties could be treated as having envisioned that either the parents or the daughter Parvathi Ammal would transfer any portion of item No.1 in defeasance to the dedication made by the couple to Sree Guruvayoorappan. The dedication made in Ext.A2 Will, in so far as it relates to item No.1 is one that was an absolute one which opened and operated as a dedication in favour of Sree Guruvayoorappan; to the extent of the share of Chellammal, upon her death; and, to the extent of the share of Parameswara Iyer, upon his death, subject only to what was preserved in favour of Parvathi Ammal, if she were to survive Chellammal and Parameswara Iyer, which, in content, was nothing beyond a life estate over item No.1, subservient to the dedication. This is how the authority granted to the temple authorities to take possession of item No.1 has to be understood. This, in our view, is the inexcusable conclusion on a reading of Ext.A2 as a whole and thereby determining the true intentions of the testators and giving effect to those intentions in terms of the bequest made therein. 17. It is here that a reasoning by the learned trial Judge assumes importance. This, in our view, is the inexcusable conclusion on a reading of Ext.A2 as a whole and thereby determining the true intentions of the testators and giving effect to those intentions in terms of the bequest made therein. 17. It is here that a reasoning by the learned trial Judge assumes importance. He quite rightly says that Parameswara Iyer was a Vakil and therefore, to be treated not as a man of ordinary prudence but one well informed and acquainted with the nuances of law. This reasoning is carried further to say that Ext.A2 Will is essentially generated in the wisdom of Parameswara Iyer and therefore, his wife Chellammal, a house wife, should also be understood to have accepted the same mode of approach. When Ext.A2 Will provides differential treatment of the two items as noted hereinabove, we visualise the elderly 'paradeshi brahmin' couple, may be a bit fragile in health, but clear in their intentions, including as regards their not so young daughter living with them; all drenched in the joy of unity in the divine in the form of their choice. Are we to take it, that Parameswara Iyer, a vakil by profession, had led his wife to testament on an item of property that stood in her name, except in a manner in which the dedication went to Lord Krishna of Guruvayoor? Whatever they left with their daughter was intended for her continued enjoyment of the glory of union with the divinity. That did not bring to her an absolute legacy with the power to alienate title. Any other view in the matter would result in depriving the testament of the true intentions of its makers. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, the finding of the court below that Ext.A2 Will contains an absolute bequest as regards item No.1 therein (plaint schedule property) in favour of Parvathi Ammal and therefore, she had an alienable interest, is unsustainable. Ext.B11 document executed by Parvathi Ammal in favour of the first defendant is, therefore, void because the life estate holder could not have transferred title. Whatever little acts of possession the first defendant would hold out could only be treated as extended acts of possession under the life estate eligibility of Parvathi Ammal qua the dedication made by the testators to Sree Guruvayoorappan, that is to say, the presiding deity of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor. 19. Whatever little acts of possession the first defendant would hold out could only be treated as extended acts of possession under the life estate eligibility of Parvathi Ammal qua the dedication made by the testators to Sree Guruvayoorappan, that is to say, the presiding deity of the Sree Krishna Temple at Guruvayoor. 19. On to the question of adverse possession, the finding of the court below as regards the eligibility of Parvathi Ammal to make the alienation in favour of the first defendant having been reversed, all that needs to be considered is whether the first defendant has established adverse possession and prescriptive title. As already noted, the quality of possession that Parvathi Ammal had, was wholly subservient to the dedication and such possession is not one that could have crystallized in the hands of her transferee to be with such animus possidendi over the corpus, which could fructify into true, actual, real, clear and hostile possession as understood in jurisprudence to sustain a plea of adverse possession, that too, against an idol, a minor in law, guarded and cared for by a statutory trustee - the Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee. It is not the first defendant's case that he entered the property by force. He has also no case that he was not aware of Ext.A2. In fact, Ext.B9 Will made by Parameswara Iyer cancelling Ext.A2 Will is the very foundation of the title projected in the purported transfer inter vivos (Ext.B11) made by Parvathi Ammal to the first defendant. That being so, the quality and contents of the right of parties under Ext.A2 Will and Ext.B9 Will which has been held by the court below as void cannot be taken to have been ignored by the first defendant who took the transfer in his favour on the strength of Ext.B9. Hence, he is only a transferee by a life estate holder and is, therefore, not entitled to raise a plea of adverse possession against the full owner. 20. The court below having found, quite rightly, that Ext.A2 is a joint Will and that mutual legacy was created thereby, it is wholly justified in holding that Ext.B9 Will is void. That finding, therefore, stands. 21. As regards the finding of mesne profits, we do not see that any legal evidence was available before the court below to hold and award any mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff. That finding, therefore, stands. 21. As regards the finding of mesne profits, we do not see that any legal evidence was available before the court below to hold and award any mesne profits in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits was rightly declined. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is entitled to succeed and the appellant-plaintiff is eligible to a decree as is granted hereunder. In the result, i. The impugned decree and judgment are set aside. ii. It is declared that the plaint schedule property has vested in the Guruvayoor Devaswom and the appellant – Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee - is entitled to take possession of that property as vested in the Guruvayoor Devaswom by virtue of the dedication contained in Ext.A2 Will. It is further declared that Ext.B9 document No.961/1977 of S.R.O., Ernakulam is void. iii. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the plaint schedule property from the defendants after demolition and removal of the buildings and structures thereon on the strength of the title as declared aforesaid. iv. The defendants are granted three months' time from today to deliver possession to the plaintiff. If possession is not so given, the plaintiff will be entitled to either levy execution on the basis of this decree before the appropriate court or proceed for appropriate remedy in terms of Section 28 of the Act, in accordance with law. v. This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. vi. The claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits is refused. vii. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. P. K. Varkey