1. The question for the Full Bench is whether the third respondent, the samudayam of Puthukulangarai devasom, had power under the instrument of 916 or A.D. 1741 to create the melkanom of the 2nd July 1885 upon which this suit was brought. The appellant (plaintiff) sued to recover from the first and second respondents ten items of lands together with arrears of rent. The lands in question belong to a Hindu temple called Puthukulangarai Bhagavathi devasom in the Nedunganad taluk of South Malabar. In 1741 the Uralers or trustees of the institution executed in favour of the third respondents predecessor a "teet" or document in respect of devasom properties and their management, and in July 1885 the third respondent granted a melkanom to the appellant. The first and second defendants are the parties in possession of the lands in dispute which have been demised to them on kanom on behalf of the devasom. Unless the document of 1741 created a mortgage with possession, the third respondent, it is conceded, would not be competent to grant a melkanom which always pre-supposes a kanom. The point therefore for consideration is whether the document of 1741 created a kanom or a mortgage w