1. The grantee under Exhibit 5, from whom the plaintiff (respondent) claims title, is estopped from setting up any title in himself inconsistent with the title put forward in Exhibit 5 by the grantor from whom the grantee obtained the possession of the plaint lands. The plaintiff is also similarly estopped. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is not exhaustive on the doctrine of estoppel [see Kadakam Valle Maru Mille Sankarani Moosad v. Othenan Nair 10 Ind. Cas. 339 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 61; Seshamma Shettati v. Chickaya Hegade 25 M.P 507 : 12 M.L.J. 119 and Alamelu Ammal v. Balu Ammal 26 Ind. Cas. 455 [LQ/MadHC/1914/416] : (1915) M.W.N. 26 : 16 M.L.T. 592 : 28 M.L.J. 685.

2. The title of the grantor was mentioned in Exhibit 5 as a right to be in possession of the lands themselves as attached to the office of Sree Bhandaram in the gift of the grantor, to grant the lands themselves as endowments to the person appointed to the office and to get back the lands for the office when the holder of the office for the time being ceases to perform its duties.

3. As that title clearly precludes the alienation of the lands by the office-holder, the alienation to plaintiff of the lands is invalid as against the 1st defendant (the trustee of the temple) and the suit based on a title inconsistent with the provisions of the deed Exhibit 5 ought to have been dismissed. In reversal of the decrees of the lower Courts, we direct the suit to be dismissed with costs in all Courts.