1. The plaintiffs are residents of Mannadi in Kadambanad village in Adoor Taluk. They are worshipers of Mannadi Bhagavathy Temple. The temple is a public temple. The plaint schedule properties belong to the temple. The administration of the temple happened to be in the hands of Mangalath tarwad, to which the defendants belong. They have some rights to conduct certain rituals in the temple. They are only trustees. The main festival in the temple is 'Uchabali' and it is conducted by the public. The income from the properties and the temple can be used only for the purposes of the temple. But the defendants misappropriated the income for their own use and they do not maintain any accounts. On these allegations the plaintiffs representing the worshippers prayed for removal of the defendants from the management of the temple and for framing a scheme for its administration and for a direction to the defendants to account for the income from the properties and the temple for three years prior to the institution of the suit.

2. The second defendant alone filed a written statement. His contention is that the temple and the properties are in the ownership and possession of Mangalath tarwad and the defendants reside in the house in the premises of the temple. The main ritual is 'Kalamezhuthum Pattum' and it is conducted by the tarwad. Nivedyam is offered by the tarwad and the deity is their family deity. The tarwad has allowed the public to worship in the temple. The offerings made at the temple are given to the tarwad. The contributions received from the public are spent for the purposes of the temple. The defendants are not liable to account for the income. The second respondent prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The learned Sub Judge after the trial came to the conclusion that the temple is a private temple of the defendants' tarwad and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the suit. The judgment and the decree are challenged in this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohanakannan and V.B.Raman Unni appearing for the appellants, learned Senior counsel Sri.K.Jayakumar and Sri.K.Jagadeesachandran Nair appearing for the respondents. I also heard learned senior counsel Sri.T.Krishnan Unni; and Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan who filed applications for impleadment of strangers.

5. Certain facts are admitted. The management of the Bhagavathy temple at Mannadi has been with the Mangalath tarwad for several decades. The public are allowed to worship in the temple. The temple gets contributions from the public.

6. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar submits that in Kerala there is no presumption that temples are public temples though it is not so in other parts of India; all temples in Kerala are open to the public. He would submit that merely because public are allowed to worship, the temple does not become a public temple. He relies on the observations in 'Malabar and Aliyasanthana Law' written by Sundara Aiyar. He also places reliance on the various decisions of the Supreme Court including Jadunath Roy and others v. Parameswar Mullick and others (AIR 1940 Privy Council 11),Sri.Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1638) and Pratapsinhji N.Desai v. Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat & others (AIR 1987 SC 2064) The learned counsel Sri.Jagadeesachandran Nair also places reliances on decisions of the Privy Council and of the Supreme Court in support of his arguments that merely because public are allowed to worship in a temple the court should not come to the conclusion that it is a public temple and dedication should not be inferred easily. He has brought to my notice the decisions of the Privy Council in Mundacheri Koman v. Thachangat Puthan Vittil Achuthan Nair and others (AIR 1934 PC 230), Babu Bhagwan Din and others v. Gir Har Saroop and others (AIR 1940 PC 7) and of the Supreme Court in The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust, (Patna) v. Mahanth Sri.Biseshwar Das (AIR 1971 SC 2057), Shri