1. The contention that the shevaks, the defendants in this case, though they acquired possession or detention of the land in dispute as servants and representatives of the deity Ranchhod Raiji, have yet by long occupation and user acquired a quasi-proprietary title as against the manager of the temple estate, the plaintiff Manohar, is not one that can be admitted. It is opposed to the principle Nemo potest possessionis suae naturam mutare. Having come in as servants or representatives of the deity, they could not by a wish or a volition change the nature of their possession, if possession it was to be called. They held for the deity, however; Manohar held for the same deity. In that ideal personage the two rights concurred, and one could not therefore really be adverse to the other, so as to give rise to a title by prescription. The only question is as to the proper representative of the deity for this particular interest; and on the former decisions no doubt can be entertained that the plaintiff holds that position. He could not have used the ground in dispute so as to realize any profit from it. The defendants who have made a small profit by their unauthorized use of it as representatives of the deity will have to account for the sums they have received in the suit for an account in which we recently gave judgment. We therefore confirm the decree of the District Judge with costs in the case of each of the appeals before us.