1. Exhibit E is in terms an absolute sale in favor of the temple, that is to say, an absolute gift by Minakshi to the temple, of property bought by her from Visvanatha Chetty. The fact that she is permitted to retain the instrument cannot, we think, be taken as sufficient to show that she also retained the ownership of the land. The deed is quite clear, and the evidence of the subsequent conduct of the parties, many years after its execution, cannot assist us in construing its language or terms.
2. Minakshi made over the lands absolutely to the temple, and had no power to give the plaintiff by Exhibit E any right of management of it.
3. We must, therefore, reverse the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the suit with costs throughout.