1. The issue involved in this appeal is regarding the Tantriship in Thirumalida Mahadeva Temple at Mallappally. The deity is believed to be Swayambhoo.

2. Earlier the area where the temple is now situate was a thick forest. The temple is believed to be more than 300 years old. In the thick forest, there was a mound and on the either side of the mound ran the Manimala river. An ascetic took up penance on the mound. The legend is that the extreme penance invoked Lord Siva's pleasure who appeared before the ascetic. Thereafter the ascetic began to worship Lord Siva. Time passed by.

3. Much later, a lady by name Mali went to the forest to collect grass. It so happened that her sickle fell on the Sivalinga and it began to bleed. Frightened Mali, the lady, informed the nearby Pathilapotti family. They performed poojas. The story goes that when nivedya was offered after poojas, as per the Tantric stipulations, it was refused by the deity. Then the gruel given to Mali along with coconut grates was offered by Mali which was accepted by the Almighty. There is considerable debate regarding how the place derived the name " ". Some authorities attribute it to Mali, the lady who was instrumental in locating the deity.

4. Admittedly the temple fell within Edappally Swaroopam. With the waning of princely rule the affairs of the temple fell into disarray and temple came to be neglected. As King's resource depleted, so also the affairs of the temple. The theory is that members of seven Karas formed what is now termed as Mallappally Thirumalida Hyndava Seva Sangam. The said Sangam is in administration and management of the temple.

5. The controversy is with regard to the status of the Tantri of the temple. It is not in dispute that for quite sometime the third defendant of Tharayil Kuzhikkatt Illom was the Tantri. According to the plaintiff, who is the member of Tharayil Kuzhikkatt Illom, the Tantriship is a hereditary right and it had been with the family for a long time. For time immemorial, members of the Illom have been performing Tantric rights in the temple. The grievance is that the Seva Sangam of which some of the defendants are the office bearers have manipulated Ext.B1 communication issued by the third defendant characterizing it as a communication by the third defendant relinquishing the Tantriship of the temple and on that basis terminating the Tantriship. The plaint proceeded on the basis that apart from the fact that the third defendant is incompetent to take any such unilateral decision, it is also contended that rights have been conferred on the family and other members of the family have a right over the Tantriship of the temple. It is also contended that by no stretch of imagination Ext.B1 could spell out a relinquishment of Tantriship. That has been so characterized by the members of the Seva Sangam with absolute malafides and with ulterior motive. Labelling the acts of the Seva Sangam as illegal and improper, the suit was laid for declaration that the Tantriship of the temple concerned is a hereditary right vested with the family i.e., Tharayil Kuzhikkatt Illom and for other consequential reliefs.

6. The Seva Sangam, as well as the fourth defendant who is the current Tantri, contested the suit. The Sangam disputed that the right of Tantriship was conferred on Tharayil Kuzhikkatt Illom and it was a hereditary right. They go to the extent of saying that initially the temple had no Tantri till 1962 after which the father of D.W.2, Vasudevan Namboodiri functioned as the Tantri. When he informed about his inability to continue the duties of Tantri, in 1993 the third defendant was asked to perform Tantric rights in the temple. There was no conferment of Tantriship on the family. The temple recently faced difficulties in getting a permanent Santikaran. It used to engage persons sponsored by the third defendant who either played truant or were found to be unsuitable. Ultimately the Sangam chose a Santikaran which was not