The transfer of management during the lifetime of the previous manager rendered the will ineffective in bequeathing the management rights.

Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The contesting parties claiming management of a School, are appellants in the connected Writ Appeals filed challenging the very same judgment of the learned Single Judge.

2. We have heard Shri.George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.88/2011, Shri.S.Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.101/2011, and learned Government Pleader for the State and Educational Agencies.

3. The facts that led to the dispute are the following:-

One Shri.Appukutty established a Lower Primary School in the year 1936 and eversince he continued as it's Manager. The School was later upgraded as an Upper Primary School. In the year 1952 Shri.Appukutty executed a gift deed gifting the entire properties including the land in which the School buildings are constructed, in favour of his wife and two minor sons. Later wife of Shri.Appukutty executed release deed releasing her rights in favour of two sons. Thereafter in the year 1983 a partition deed was executed between the joint owners of the property, namely the two sons of Shri.Appukutty, whereunder the land and School buildings and improvements thereof were assigned to the share of Shri.Balakrishnan. During the life time of Shri.Appukutty, his elder son, namely Shri.Balakrishnan was made as the Manager of the School and the same was approved by the Educational Authorities vide Ext.P3 dated 20/09/1986. Shri.Balakrishnan continued as the Manager for 20 years without any dispute whatsoever. The dispute on the right of management of the School started after his death, which happened on 09/06/2006. The wife of the deceased Manager, namely the appellant in W.A.No.101/2011, applied before the Educational Authorities, namely the Assistant Educational Officer, to approve her as Manager of the School after the death of her husband, who was the Manager for 20 years. Since no orders were passed by the AEO within a reasonable time, she approached this Court by filing WP(C) and this Court, considering the dispute between the parties, directed the Director of Public Instructions to decide the matter. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the DPI issued Ext.P6 order produced in W.A.No.88/2011. Ext.P6 was challenged by the appellant in W.A.No.88/2011, who is the nephew of the deceased previous Manager, in revision before the Government, and the Government by Ext.P8 held that the dispute has to be settled before Civil Court, and until then, based on the Will executed by Shri.Appukutty in the year 1984, the Government handed over the management of the School to Late Shri.Balakrishnan's brother's son, namely the appellant in W.A.No.88/2011. Even though the deceased Manager's wife filed a suit based on the observation of the Government in Ext.P8, she challenged the said order in this Court by filing WP (C), wherein the learned Single Judge modified Ext.P8 by directing the AEO to take over the Management of the School until Civil Court decides the dispute between the parties. In other words, Ext.P8 is upheld by the learned Single Judge, but with a change in the interim arrangement of the management of the School. Since both the contesting parties are aggrieved by the interim arrangement made by the learned Single Judge, these Writ Appeals are filed.

4. While learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.88/2011 contended that the interim arrangement made by the Government based on the Will executed by Shri.Appukutty is perfectly correct, wife of the deceased Manager contended that the Will is inconsequential because her husband Shri.Balakrishnan became the Manager by transfer of management and not by succession under any Will.

5. After hearing both sides and after going through the documents and the impugned orders, we do not find any justification to uphold Ext.P8, which is what the learned Single Judge has done in the impugned judgment. What was challenged before the Government in revision was Ext.P6 order, wh