The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ancient documents and the true intention of the parties in determining the legal relation between the parties and the validity of property rights.

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 with possession. It is in these terms:

Teet granted by the Uralers to Chitambara Patter: You are appointed samudayam of Puthukulangarai devasom and we have received from you a kanom of 18,000 fanams on the devasom properties. From the gross rent of 2,850 paras of paddy due to the devasom, you are to appropriate 1,800 paras to interest on the money due to you and after deducting the amount and 400 paras of paddy allowed to tenants for interest on their kanom amount, 8,000 fanams, you are to defray the expenses of the devasom with the remainder and keep accounts.

2. The document is not framed like an ordinary kanom document and there are no words of demise on kanom and there is no indication of any intention to transfer property or right of possession. It refers first to Chitambara Patters appointment as samudayam, and as such it was his duty to collect the rent due to the devasom, to pay such charges as the Uralers might direct him to pay, to appropriate the balance to the requirements of the devasom and to keep accounts. The document proceeds to authorise him only to do those things which a samudayam may do and is bound to do. It refers next to receipt of a kanom of 18,000 fanams on devasom properties and thereby certainly shows an intention to create a charge for the amount in favour of the samudayam. But the word kanom signifies, in its primary sense, only an advance made to a proprietor of land as security for rent or patom, and it is only when the context shows that it is used as a word of tenure in connection with demise of land, that it is accepted, according to local usage to denote, in its secondary sense, an intention to create a mortgage with possession at least for a term of twelve years. The material words in the document are "received a kanom of 18,000 fanams on devasom properties" and they do not show that the term kanom is used as a word of tenure. The document does not authorise the samudayam to grant, renew or redeem kanoms or to eject tenants in his own right, nor does it attach to the transaction any other recognised incident of a demise on kanom.

3. A samudayam may become a creditor of the devasom and his debt may also be secured on devasom properties. If the loan were subsequent to his appointment as samudayam, his right to collect rent, and even his possession as samudayam, could not be referred to his position as creditor so as to improve it into that of a mortgagee with possession. In the absence, then, of a clear indication of an intention to grant a kanom, it could make no difference that the loan and the appointment as samudayam were simultaneous, the test being always the true intention of the parties so far as it could be ascertained from the language of the instrument and the nature of its provisions.

4. A part from his inte