S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Second Appeal has come before us on a reference by Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan. The reference has been made since a question of importance regarding the right of Thanthries had arisen in this case. The facts relating to the Second Appeal are as follows:

2. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 218 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur is the appellant. Defendant in the suit is the Cochin Devaswom Board, Trichur. The suit was instituted for a declaration that the right to conduct Pushpanjali and to obtain fee thereof in the Triprayar Sree Rama Swami Temple is the right vested in the plaintiff as the Thantri of the Temple. According to the plaintiff, the Triprayar Sree Rama Swami Temple is the Temple under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board. The right to conduct Pushpanjali of the Temple is vested in the Thanthri of the Temple. Thanthravrithi belongs to the plaintiff's family. The plaintiff contends that this was granted to the plaintiff's family by Lord Parasurama and as per this right, Pushpanjali in the Temple was being conducted by the members of the plaintiff's family. Only in the presence of the Thanthri, Pushpanjali was conducted by the Melsanthi. Pushpanjali is to be conducted only during Vrischika and on no other occasions. But from 1.5.1964 onwards, the Devaswom Board has been issuing tickets for conducting Pushpanjali and this Pushpanjali is being performed by the Santhi specially deputed for that purpose called "Pushpanjali Santhi". The Devaswom Board is receiving amounts for conducting Pushpanjali and the Santhies are given a portion of the amount. The plaintiff's family filed representations on 9.7.1964 to the Cochin Devaswom Board claiming its right to conduct Pushpanjali. Even though many representations were filed, no action had been taken. According to the plaintiff, the Cochin Devaswom Board wanted some authoritative documents to support the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's family has got right to conduct Pushpanjali.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff produced photostat copy of Ext. A1, which is a Grandham in Thaliyola wherein it has been stated that the right to conduct Pushpanjali belongs to Thanthri. But inspite of this, the right is not given to Thanthri. Hence the suit has been filed for a declaration that the right to conduct Pushpanjali in the Triprayar Sree Rama Swami Temple and for receiving the remuneration for the same belongs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff's family and for other consequential reliefs.

4. A written statement was filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board. It is stated in the written statement as follows: Pushpanjali or Archana is only an offering to God. The Thanthri or the Santhi had no right over it. They have to do the Pushpanjali as directed by the Devaswom Board. The Thanthri has no right to do Pushpanjali. The Thanthri is to do Thanthram only. Pushpanjali is not included in Thanthram. The Thanthri is to do special acts like "Kalasham" and "Prathishta". One Thanthri does these duties in several Temples. The defendant is not aware of any "Grandha" in the possession of the plaintiff. It was not produced before the Board. The alleged Grandha is not valid and binding on the Board. The plaintiff has no right to challenge the appointment of Pushpanjali Santhi. The post was created for administrative efficiency. Pushpanjali can be done oniy by the person who is doing Poojas in the Temple. The Thanthri has no right to receive offerings.

5. There were three Santhies at the Triprayar Temple and they were called "Melsanthi", "Keezhsanthi" and 'Ozhivusanthi". The Ozhivusanthi was doing Pooja in the absence of Melsanthi and Keezhsanthi. When there was increase in the offerings of Pushpanjali, one person had m be appointed for Pushpanjali alone. Thus, the Ozhivusanthi was given the status of Melsanthji and he was appointed as Pushpanjali Santhi. At Triprayar Temple, the Thanthri is to do the Ucha Pooja or Pantheeradi P