‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution

By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land

Taken from: Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis

  • All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other; Sircar was the largest Janmi
  • Effect of Royal Proclamation, 1899 – Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Lands
  • Further Development – Pandaravaka and Janmam Lands  
  • Pandaravaka Lands Nature- State landlord; right in Ryot derived from Sirkar
  • Pattom Proclamation of 1040 – converted Tenants into Permanent Leases
  • Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955
  • Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 & Land History
  • Land Belonged to Chief of Poonjar was Transferred to Travancore
  • Poonjar Raja was a Janmi
  • Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899 – the Sircar became Janmi
  • All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other
  • Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971
  • ‘Pandaravaka lands’ and ‘Janmam lands’.
  • Kanan Devan Lands were ‘Pandaravaka lands’
  • Grant and the Right of Ownership
  • Grant – Land Continues to be Government lands

‘Jenmom Lands’ & Freehold Interest in Travancore

The lands granted by Erstwhile (Travancore or Cochin) Sircar continued to be lands belonging to the Sircar, and the grantees did not acquire absolute proprietary rights. It is made clear in the following decisions.

Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State Of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 Kenan Devan Hills Concession (on grant deeds) fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar. This land is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.
State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272Company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area (on grant deeds)
Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86A coffee planter who holds lands under a grant  is not a Jenmi.
Majeed v. State of Kerala,(2006) 1 KerLT 19Petitioner contended – ‘grant’ was free hold property. The court did not accept.
Thomas Philip v. Forest Range Officer, 2021-2 KerLT 578Arguement that deed of ‘grant’ ‘for coffee or tea cultivation’ was not a grant, but a title deed was not accepted

All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other; Sircar was the largest Janmi

The Supreme Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State Of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 (Sikri (Cj), Shelat, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua, , H.R.  Khanna, JJ.) held that Kenan Devan Hills Concession (on grant deeds) fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar. This land is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.

Points came for consideration were the following:

  • 15. If any person wants land in Travancore, he must obtain it from, and hold it of, some one of the body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi.” (Sir T. Madava Row’s Memo.) In Mr. Kunhiraman Nair’s Memo on Land -Tenures it is stated:
  • “At present the Sircar is the largest Janmi in the State. The janmam lands of all the petty Rajas subdued in the last few centuries and of several Madampies, have lapsed to the State, and other causes such as escheat & c, have tended, to increase the extent of the Janmam possession of the Sircar. About three- fourths of the whole land in the State belong on Janmam to the Sircar, the remaining one-fourth being distributed among the classes mentioned in para 32 It is interesting to note that in certain parts of Madras Janmam rights existed ‘and the ‘Government lands were called government janman lands.
  • (See Government Order No. 1902 Revenue dated November 1, 1926) Para 3 of that order deals with the janmam estates and reads as under :
  • “3. JANMABHOGAM.-Paragraph 11 of ‘the Board’s Proceedings-“Lands have neither to been des- cribed as-
  • Government Janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly from the Government and on which taram assessment and janmabhogam are paid to the Government and
  • private janmam, i.e. lands which are held directly from the Government and on which taram assessment but not janmabhogam is paid to the Government.”

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, it is also found as under:

  • “12. Janmam lands are precisely what are in Europe called allodial properties as contra-distinguished from feudal.
  • 13. It must be clear from what has been stated that all the lands in the Travancore belonged to a body of janmis. There are no lands that do not belong to some janmi or other.
  • 14. Be it remembered that the Sircar itself is one of these janmis, it having come to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways. It is only a great janmi, great in the sense that its janmam property is extensive.”

.

This Article is Included in the Printed Book:
Saji Koduvath on
 Kerala Land History
&
KLR Act
Pages – 294: Rs. 850
Gpay/Whatapp/Phone No. 91-9387560056

.

Effect of Royal Proclamation, 1899 – Sircar became the Janmi

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, our Apex Court concluded that the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 (regarding the land leased by Poonjar Chief to Munro) must be that the Sircar became the Janmi. It was observed as under:

  • “It seems to us that on the material placed before us it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression “Janmam right”. If, as stated in Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume IV, there are no lands that do not belong to a Janmi, and the Sircar becomes a janmi by gift, escheat, confiscation or otherwise, the effect of the Royal Proclamation of 1899 must be that the Sircar became the Janmi.”
  • Note: Poonjar Chief or Raja had subjugated himself to Travancore Sircar or Maharaja.

Pandaravaka and Janmam Lands Further Development

After making a definite finding that the land with Poonjar Raja was a janmam land and it became vested with Travancore Sircar, an alternative argument was considered by the Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, as under:

  • “Assuming that the lands do not fall with ‘Janmam Right’, we may now deal with the second point:
  • In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Revised Edition, 1936, Registered Lands are described as follows
    • “Registered lands are lands registered in the revenue accounts as held by or granted to individuals, families, corporations or institutions, and comprise all the different kinds of tenures bearing either the full assessment or wholly or partially free of assessment. These lands comprise not only the areas brought under cadastral survey but include also coffee, tea, rubber and other estates, cardamom gardens and other special grants outside the limits of cadastral survey.”
  • The Registered Lands include inter alia, (a) Pandaravaka lands and (b) Janmam lands. Regarding Pandaravaka lands it is stated :
  • “Pandaravaka or Sircar lands are, lands of which the State is the landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are derived from the Sircar.”

In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III, Registered Lands are described as under.

  • “Registered lands are lands registered in the revenue accounts as held by or granted to individuals, families, corporations or institutions, and comprise all the different kinds of tenures bearing either the full assessment or wholly or partially free of assessment. …” (Quoted in: Kannan Devan Hills Produce v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301)

Section 4(1) of the Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980, reads as under:

  • “4. Grantees and lessees to pay current seigniorage rates – Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in any grant, lease deed, contract or agreement, or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, with effect on and from the commencement of this Act, every grantee and every lessee shall be bound to pay to the Government the seigniorage rates in force for the time being for the timber cut and removed from any land held by him under the grant or lease.”

A Janmam Right is FREEHOLD interest described as “Estate” in Constitution

“In common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Australia, Canada, and Ireland, a freehold is the common mode of ownership of real property, or land, and all immovable structures attached to such land. It is in contrast to a leasehold, in which the property reverts to the owner of the land after the lease period expires or otherwise lawfully terminates” (Wikipedia). It doesn’t mean that such lands are free from payment of tax or revenue to the Government.

Travancore State Manual Vol. III published by the Travancore Government in 1940, says as to the class of jenmom land which were entirely freehold and exempted from payment of any kind of tax to Government under any circumstances. These were the special properties given by the Ruler to certain individuals considering their valid services or to certain institutions including temples.

‘Jenmom’ was the proprietary interest of a landlord in lands (Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080). Subba Rao, J., observed as under:

  • “Under the definition, any janmam right in Kerala is an “estate”. A janmam right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala.
  • Moor in his “Malabar Law and Custom” describes it as a hereditary proprietorship. A janmam interest may, therefore, be described as “proprietary interest of a landlord in lands” and such a janmam right is described as “estate” in the Constitution. Substituting “janmam right” in place of “estate” in cl. 2 (b), the “rights” in Art. 31 A (1) (a) will include the rights of a proprietor and subordinate tenure-holders in respect of a janmam right.
  • It follows that the extinguishment or modification of a right refers to the rights of a proprietor or a subordinate tenure-holder in the janmam right. A proprietor called the janmi or his subordinate tenure-holder has certain defined rights in janmam right”. Land-tenures in Malabar are established by precedents or immemorial usage. Janmam right is a freehold interest in property and the landlord is called  “janmi”. He can create many subordinate interests or tenures therein.” (Quoted in: Kannan Devan Hills Produce v.  The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301)

In the Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation, V of 1071, Jenmom land is defined as-

  • “land (other than Pandaravaka, Sripandaravaka, Kandukrishi or Sircar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sircar accounts) which is either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to public revenue, is subject to Rajabhogam only, and the occupancy right in; which is created for a money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to the payment of Michavaram or customary dues and the payment of the renewal fees.”

The Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, V of 1071, defines ‘Jenmi’ as under:

  • ” ‘Jenmi’ means a person in whom the proprietary right over Jenmom lands is vested and includes, in the case of Devaswoms owning Jenmom lands, the managing Trustee or Trustees of the Institution for the time being.”

In Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86, it was observed with respect to the ‘Janmi’ as under:

  • “What the definition stresses is the proprietary right in the land. We may in this connection extract a passage from the Memorandum of Mr. Kunhiraman Nair, one of the Judges of the High Court of Travancore, about 70 years ago:
  • “The term ‘Jenmom’ was originally used by the Brahmins exclusively to denote their allodial proprietorship and is still used in that sense in courts and cutcherries in Travancore, though in other parts of Malayalam and in popular parlance in Travancore, the term is now universally employed to denote the full proprietary right in the land of any class of people”.

Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, further observed as under:

  • “18. Coming to the second category of lands, viz., Jenmom lands, the Jenmies have full proprietary rights in the soil. The origin of the title of the jenmies is shrouded in obscurity but the development of this branch of land tenure was on the assumption that Parasurama who conquered the land of Kerala or, as mythology would put it, reclaimed it from the sea, gave it as gift to Malayala Brahmins or Nambudiries. The rest of the people cultivated the lands under the Jenmies. In course of time, the Jenmies endowed certain temples built by them with lands and thus the Devaswom lands came into existence. These were similar in nature and incidents to Jenmom lands. These lands were enjoyed free of tax, the State imposing a light assessment only when the Jenmies alienated the land to others.

In the Travancore Land Revenue Manual Volume 4 it is, stated

  • “9. A Jamni differs from such landlords in that he does not derive his title to lands from the Sircar & Co. His title to the Janmam lands is inherent. …….. (Quoted in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218)

Nature of Pandaravaka Lands – State is landlord; rights in Ryots only derived from Sirkar

The nature of Pandaravaka lands is explained in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual (Revised Edition), Volume Ill, Part I, page 6, as follows:

  • “Pandaravaka or Sirkar lands are lands of which the State is the landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are derived from the Sirkar. They form the major portion of the registered lands.” (Quoted in -Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86)

Pattom proclamation of 1040 – converted Tenants into Permanent Leases

Before 1040 M. E. the holders of Pandaravaka lands were mere tenants-at-will as the tenements created by the Sirkar till then was resumable and were of the nature of temporary leases just like tenements created by private jenmis. The pattom proclamation of 1040 converted them into permanent leases and conferred on the holders thereof permanent rights of occupancy, heritable and alienable.” (Quoted in -Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86)

Edavagas:

The lands in the following areas were recognized in Sirkar Accounts as Edavagas:-

  • 1.  Sreepadam.  
    • It comprised in 7 pakuthies in Chirayinkil Taluk.
    • These villages were originally hereditary domain of Ranis Attangal. Subsequently the sovereignty was transferred to Travancore Maha Raja.
    • Rent was collected from this land and accounted as public revenue.
  • 2.  Kilimanur.
    • It comprised in 2 pakuthies in Chirayinkil Taluk.
    • This land was granted to Kilimanur Koil Thampurans.
    • The land revenue was assigned to the family of Koil Thampurans.
  • 3.  Edappally.
    • It comprised in Edappally North and Edappally South Pakuthies in Alangad Taluk; Thrukkunnappuzha in Karthikappally Taluk; Kallooppara in Thiruvalla Taluk; and Vazhakkulam in Kunnathunad Taluk.
    • The land revenue was assigned to the Chief of the Edappally Edavaga.
  • 4. Vanjipuzha
    • The administration and collection of rent from the tenants in this Edavaga was left to be settled by the Chief in 3 Pakuthies in Peermedu Taluk.
  • 5.  Poonjar
    • It comprised in Poonjar Pakuthi in Peermedu Taluk.
    • This Edavaga was the property of Poonjar Rajas.
    • They received grants from early sovereigns of Travancore.
    • According to the tradition, the Edavaga was purchased by the Rajas from Thekkumkur and from annexation of Thekkumkur by Travancore, the Poonjar Chief became the vassal of Travancore.

Edavagais

In Harska Turst v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, it is observed as under:

  • “ The Edavagais were petty kingdoms or principalities which remained independent or quasi independent until the consolidation of Travancore in the 18th century. They were outside the State Ayacut and paid no land tax. The Chiefs, however, in exercise of their ancient sovereign powers, collected Melvaram or Melvara Rajgbhogam from the jenmis inside the Edavagais (See: 1945 T. L. R. 581 and 728).”

In Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369, it is observed as under:

  • “The Edavagai Act intended acquisition and extinguishing of all Edavagai rights over the Edavagais of Edapally, Kilimanoor, Poonjar and Vanjipuzha; then vested respectively in the Edapally Swaroopam, Kilimanoor Kottaram, Poonjar Koickal and Vanjipuzha Madom. Obviously Edavagai Chiefs were the Vassals of the Travancore-Maharaja and had rights over the lands within their jurisdiction as jenmies and otherwise, for collection of rent.”

Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955

Harska Turst v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, observed as under:

  •  “8. The rights of the Poonjar Chief were acquired by the State under the Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955, which came into force on 1-1-1956. Edavagai rights is defined in S.2(5) of that Act as follows:
  • Edavagai rights means all the rights and privileges vested in
    • the Edapally Swaroopam,
    • the Kilimanoor Kottaram,
    • the Poonjar Koickal and
    • the Vanjipuzha Matom
  •  relating to heir respective Edavagais and includes in the case of the Poonjar Koickal the right to receive Melvaram in respect of lands situate within the Edavagai of Poonjar.
  • 9. Sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Act provided that on and from its commencement, the privileges of the Edapally Swaroopam and the Poonjar Koickal relating to Excise Revenues of the Edavagais of Edapally and Poonjar shall stand extinguished, and sub-s.(2):
    • “All the Edavagai rights of the Edapally Swaroopam and the Poonjar Koickal other than those mentioned in sub-section [1] and all the Edavagai rights of the Kilimanoor Kottaram and the Vanjipuzha Matom over their respective Edavagais, and all rights, title and interests vested in the Chiefs, in respect of waste lands or thanathu lands which have been assigned by them on Kuthagapattom or other like demises,
    • and all rights, title and interests vested in the Chiefs, in respect of waste lands or thanathu lands which have not been so assigned by them are hereby acquired by Government, and all such rights, title and interests shall vest in Government free of all encumbrances.”
  • Sub-s.(2) of S.4 fixed the compensation payable by the Government to the Edavagais for the acquisition of the rights, title, and interests mentioned in sub-s.(2) of S.3 at the amounts as specified in the Schedule, being 8 1/3 times the annual income of the respective Edavagais less five per cent for collection charges. It is clear from these provisions that what was acquired was the Chiefs rights, and it is difficult to understand how the acquisition of those rights can possibly affect the right of the State to tax the lands concerned.
  • 10. The right to basic tax is in no sense a manifestation of the Chiefs right to Melvaram. It is a right founded on the Constitution and not on the acquisition of the rights of the Edavagais.”

Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, did Not change Character of Holdings

Lease holdings of the Edavagais continued as Lease holdings with liability to pay Tax.

In Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369, it is pointed out-The Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955 did not change the character of the holdings and it only interfered with the right, title and interest of the respective Edavagais; they made made to vest with the Government. The effect was that the liability of the tenants to pay rent or other levies to the Edavagais stood altered as liability to tax imposed by the Government.

The 1955 Act is analysed in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, as under:

  • “There was also a saving clause in Section 11 which exempted from vesting, those lands held by the Chiefs as a Jenmy or as a pattadar under the Government and those held by the families, already settled and assessed, as also those lands in the direct possession of the Chiefs and any of the members of the respective families.”

Then it is observed by the High Court of Kerala as under:

  • “Hence land existing on a lease from either of the Edavagais or as freehold on valid purchase made, continues in the possession and ownership of the land holder/lessee and the liability to payment of rent or other levies to the Edavagais would stand altered as liability to tax imposed by the Government. This does not change the character of the holdings and only interferes with the right, title and interest of the respective Edavagais; which stands vested with the Government.”
  • It was pointed out-
    • “The ‘Edavagai Rights’ is defined under sub-section (5), as the rights and privileges which vested in the families and ‘Chief’ was defined under sub-section (6) as the senior male member of the respective families, in whom the management of the family is vested.”
    • “The right, title and interest within the respective Edavagais, existing in favour of the families and the Chiefs, by the enactment, stood vested in the Government, free of all encumbrances.”
  • Note: Here the High Court of Kerala (in Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369) did not consider the effect of grant.

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 & Land History

The Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was enacted for the resumption of Kannan Devan lands, other than plantations in Kannan Devan Hills Village in Kottayam District and for the distribution of such lands for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Constitution Bench of our Apex Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, upheld the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act.

Land Belonged to Chief of Poonjar was Transferred to Travancore

The Chief of Poonjar (H.H. the Maharaja – as mentioned in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, Para 11) granted a lease for coffee cultivation (First Poonjat Concession) in 1877 without limit of time to late J.D. Munro of a tract of land known as Anchunad and Kannan Devan Hills. The chief was the Janmam holder (proprietary interest of a landlord in lands – Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, Para 11.

Agreement dated 18.09.1899 was entered into between Rohini Thirunal Kerala Varma Raja, the then Chief of Poonjar Koyikkal, and the Travancore Government, under which the ownership of the land described in the First Poonjat Concession had been transferred to the Government of Travancore.(Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Poonjar Raja was a Janmi

Our Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, observed that the Poonjar Raja was a Janmi when the First Concession was granted and the whole lands have fallen within the expression ‘Janmam right’.

On 2.8.1886, the agreement called the Second Pooniat Concession was entered into modifying the previous deed of ratification. By this time a company called the North Travancore Land Planting and Agricultural Society, Ltd. had acquired the rights in the said land.

The Poonjar Chief surrendered certain rights, to Travancore Sircar, which he had been exercising over the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills. The Apex Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, considered the effect of this surrender, with reference of its previous judgment in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras (1960 (3) SCR 887) and observed, on the materials placed before the Court, that it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression ‘Janmam right’.

But the Royal Proclamation dated 24.9.1899 changed the situation.

Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899 – the Sircar became Janmi

By a Royal proclamation dated 24.09.1899, the rights of the Poonjar Edavagai over the said tracts became vested in the Government of Travancore. The persons in possession of such lands were treated only as lessees under the Government. Government of Kerala, successor of the former Government of Travancore, was vested with the right, title and interest of the former Government.

As already explained, while perusing the nature of ‘janmam right’ it was held by our Apex  Court in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras, 1960-3 S.C.R. 887, Subba Rao, J., observed:

  • (i) As per the definition in Royal proclamation, any janmam right in Kerala is an “estate”.
  • (ii) A janmam right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala (with liability to pay tax).
  • (iii) Moor in his “Malabar Law and Custom” describes it as a hereditary proprietorship.
  • (iv) A janmam interest may, therefore, be described as “proprietary interest of a landlord in lands“, and
  • (v) Such a janmam right is described as “estate” in the Constitution.” (Quoted in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218)

All Lands Belonged to one Janmi or Other

As already stated, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, it is observed as under:

  • “13. It must be clear from what has been stated that all the lands in the Travancore belonged to a body of janmis. There are no lands that do not belong to some janmi or other.
  • 14. Be it remembered that the Sircar itself is one of these janmis, it having come to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways. It is only a great janmi, great in the sense that its janmam property is extensive.”

Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971

Later the Kerala Government found that a large extent of agricultural lands in Kannan Devan Hills Village had not been converted into plantations and such lands are not required for the purpose of existing plantations. Accordingly, the Government decided to resume such lands for distribution for cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. Consequent to this, Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was enacted. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301

The Supreme Court, in Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. The State Of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301 (Sikri (Cj), Shelat, A.N. Ray, I.D. Dua, , H.R.  Khanna, JJ.) considered –

  • Whether the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 was protected from challenge under Art. 31A of the Constitution. That is, whether these lands fall within expression ‘Janmam right’ or “estate”  in art. 31A of the Constitution.
  • If the lands acquired were an “estate”, or with ‘Janmam right’ owned by the Company, the land reform enactment did not have stood valid. (Note: Kesavananda Bharathi Case came in 1973.)

According to the petitioner Company, ‘it has at all times been holding, cultivating, enjoying and dealing with the Concession Land as the absolute, owner thereof’.

The position taken by the State was –

  • that the petitioner Company was not an absolute owner, but only a lessee under the Government, especially since the 1899 Proclamation issued by H.H. the Maharaja.
  • that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title was John Danial Munro, who obtained, the first Pooniat Concession from Punjar Valiya Raja, on July 11, 1877. This Concession recited that an, application was made for the grant of the above property to the Raja for coffee cultivation.
  • It was further stipulated in the Concession that
    •  “you shall clear and remove the jungles, and reclaim the waste lands within the said boundaries, and cultivate them with coffee up to the year 1058 and from the year 1059, pay our rent collector a yearly rent at the rate of 3,000 British Rupees.”
  • H.H. the Maharaja executed a deed of ratification, dated November 28, 1878, by which the Government ratified the First Pooniat Concession dated July 11, 1877.
  • This deed of ratification laid down –  the Government permitted the grantee to hold the land.
  • Clause 5 of the Deed of Ratification, is important. It pro- vides, inter alia, that
    • “the grantee can appropriate to his own use within the limits of the grant all timber except the following and such as may hereafter be reserved namely, Teak, Cole Teak, Blackwood, Ebony, Karoonthaly, Sandalwood; should he carry any timber without the limits of the grant it will be subject to the payment of Kooteekanom, or Customs Duty……….
  • The eleventh clause reads – “The land granted shall be held in perpetuity as heritable or transferable property, but every case of transfer of the grant by the grantee shall be immediately made known to the Sircar, who shall have the right of apportioning the tax, if a portion of the holding is transferred.”
  • The twelfth clause stipulates – “The discovery of useful mines and treasures within the limits of the grant shall be communicated to the Sircar, and the grantee shall in respect to such mines and treasures, abide by the decision of the Sircar.”
  • The sixteenth clause provides – “The grantee shall be bound to preserve the forest trees growing on the banks of the principal streams running through the tract to the extent of fifty yards in breadth on each side of the stream, the Underwood only being permitted to be cleared and coffee planted instead. Similarly he shall also be bound to preserve the, trees about the crest of the hill to the extent of a quarter of a mile on each side.”
  • A Royal Proclamation was made on September 24, 1899 provided that ‘Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills is an integral portion of our territory and that the inhabitants of the said tract are ‘hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poonjar Chief.

The Apex Court found the following:

  • The janmam rights (even if remained with the Poonjar Chief, H.H. the Maharaja became the janmi by the Royal proclamation of 1899.
  • The nature of ‘janmam right’ has been examined by this Court previously in Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni v. State of Madras [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887 Subba Rao, J., observed that janmam right in Kerala is an “estateand it is the freehold interest.
  • The Sircar itself is one of these janmisand it was the largest Janmi. It came to possess janmam lands by gift, purchase, escheat, confiscation and other ways
  • If any person wants land in Travancore, he must obtain it from, some one of the body of Janmis, i.e. from the Sircar, which is the Chief Janmi, or from some other Janmi.

The Apex Court held that it was difficult to resist the conclusion that the lands in dispute fall within the expression “Janmam right” vested with Sircar.

The Apex Court further found –

  • The Registered Lands included inter alia, (a) Pandaravaka lands and (b) Janmam lands.
  • Regarding Pandaravaka lands it is stated : “Pandaravaka or Sircar lands are, lands of which the State is the landlord or the Jenmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are derived from the Sircar.”
  • Kenan Devan Hills Concession is dealt with under this heading, i.e. Pandaravaka Lands.
  • It thus appears that the State grants like
    • Kanan Devan Hills Concession and
    • Ten Square Miles Concession, and
    • Munro Lands,
  • were treated under the heading ‘Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.

On these findings The Apex Court upheld the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act, 1971 and dismissed the challenge of the Company.

Position of jenmi

This definition is intended for the purposes of the Regulation, which regulates the relations between Janmis and their Kanapattom tenants. A Janmi has not only Kanapattom tenants but has other tenants as well holding on Adima Anubhogam, Thiruvulam and similar other tenures and the Regulation is not concerned with the latter class of tenants in whose case the ordinary law of landlord and tenant is applicable. Revenue law, on the other hand, makes no distinction between a Kanapattom tenant and a non Kanapattom tenant if he holds under a Janmi recognised in the revenue accounts.

Hence for revenue purposes, janmam lands were lands that were entered in the revenue accounts under the heads of Devaswomvaka, Brahmamaswomvaka and Madampimarvaka, i.e., to say a land to be classed as Janmom land should have been recognised as such in the revenue accounts. The mere circumstance that a land belongs to a janmi does not bring it under janmom tenure and conversely the mere fact that janmom land is absolutely transferred to a non janmi does not any the less detract from its original character. Janmom  lands are allodial properties and the proprietary right in them is considered as inherent in the individual and not derived from the State. The Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 1972-2 SCC 218, observed that, the State grants like Kannan Devan Hills Concession and Ten square Miles Concession and Munro Lands, were treated under the heading ‘Pandaravaka Lands’, i.e., lands belonging to the Sircar. (Kottayam District Koottu Krishi Karshakasangam v. Stateof Kerala, 2015)

Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980

Kerala Grants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to modify the rights under grants and leases, for cultivation, made by the former States of Travancore and Cochin. The Act was made for the reason that such grants and leases brought about heavy loss to the Government and they resulted in huge un-earned profits to the grantees and lessees; and it was found necessary in the public interest that such undue profits to a few person were to be utilised for the common benefit of the general public. The Act required the Grantees and lessees to pay current seigniorage rates (for the trees cut by the grantees and leases) and rent to the Government. The Collector was authorised to revise assessment and rent.

Grant and the Right of Ownership

In  Majeed v. State of Kerala,(2006) 1 KerLT 19, the State demanded seigniorage under  Kerala Grants and Leases Modification of Rights Act, 1980. Petitioner was a person who purchased trees from Travancore Rubber and Tea Company Ltd. Disputes and questions arose in the light of of the Kerala Grants & Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980. Admittedly there was originally a grant. The scope of ‘grant’ was disputed. The contention of the petitioner was that it was the free hold property. The court did not accept the argument.

  • The rejected contention was stated by the Court as – “The petitioner contends that the respondents have no authority to demand seigniorage in respect of the timber of the trees planted by the company, as the property in question granted in favour of the company is not a leasehold property, but a free hold property, as is revealed by the order of grant Exts. R2(i).”

Grant – Land Continues to be Government lands

During second half of the 19th century in erstwhile Kingdoms in South India gave very large extent of Government lands were on “grant” to various persons (mostly foreigners) or institutions for putting up plantation.

The Royal Proclamation made on 24.9.1899 recites as follows;

  • “Whereas we deem it expedient to clearly declare the position of this State in respect of the tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills, we are pleased to declare as follows; (1) The tract known as Anjanad and Kannan Devan Hills is an integral portion of our territory and all rights over it belong to and vest in us.
  • (2) The inhabitants of the said tract and all others whom it may concern are hereby informed and warned that they are not to pay any taxes, rents or dues, or make any other payment to the Poonjar Chief or his representatives or to any person other than an officer of our Government authorised in this behalf, in respect of anything in, upon or connected with the said tract, with the exception, however, of a payment of rupee three thousand per annum from the successors in interests of the late Mr.J.D.Munro of London and Peermade now being paid to the said Chief in virtue of a Lease deed executed by the said Chief in favour of the said late Mr.J.D. Munro on the 11th July, 1877, and which we are pleased to permit the said Chief to continue to receive.
  • (3) The lands within the said tract will be dealt with by our Government in the same manner as lands in other parts of our  territory with such modifications as the circumstances and conditions of the said tract may require and all taxes, rents and dues hitherto paid, and that may hereafter be imposed by our Government shall, with the exception of the sum of rupees three thousand aforesaid, be paid by the, occupants of lands within the said tract whose occupation has been or may be recognized or confirmed by our Government, and of such portions of the said tract as may from time to time hereafter, with the permission of our Government, be occupied, to the officers of our Government who may be authorised in this behalf.”

Landmark Enactments in Land Tenure Reforms that Culminated in KLR Act, 1963

Royal Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (1865 AD) – Fist Gigantic Step

During the second half of the 19th century several Royal Proclamations were promulgated with a view to confer rights in the land to the tenants who were the real cultivators. Majority of the people were engaged in agriculture; but the lands belonged to Jenmies (Sircar, Brahmins or Devaswoms). The cultivators held the land under lease arrangement known as Pattom, Otti, Inam and Viruthi etc. One of the important Regulations came in the line of agrarian reforms was the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME (1865 AD). It pertained to Pattom (lease) tenements created (by Sircar) on Sirkar lands known as Pandaravaka lands. It is exalted as the Magna Carta of peasants of Travancore it being led to conferring land to tillers, step by step.

Proclamation of 1040 (1865) – No Proprietary Rights; But, Permanency to Cultivators

Till 1040 ME (1865 AD), the agriculturists, who held the Pandaravaka lands under Pattom arrangement, were liable to be treated as mere tenants-at-will; the land being resumable resumable (by the Government) at any time, as they were in the nature of temporary leases just like tenements created by private jenmis.

The Pattom Proclamation of 1040 (1865) converted the pattom arrangement on pandaravaka lands into permanent leases and conferred on the holders thereof permanent rights of occupancy, heritable and alienable. Though the Proclamation of 1040 ME did not expressly confer full proprietary rights on tenants, it gave the tenants permanency in the Pandaravaka soil; and it recorded the fist gigantic step towards the land reforms in Travancore.

Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) Brings in Further Radical Changes

Paragraph 9 of the Proclamation of 1061 says, with reference to Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, as regards Pandarapattam lands, as under:

  • “these lands were originally the absolute property of Government, and the tenants were mere tenants-at-will; but, by the Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, Government generously waived all right to these lands, and declared them to be the private, hereitable, saleable property of the holders.”

Section 22 of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 (1886) made radical changes in land tenure.

Those changes were:

  • (1)   no debt shall be recognised as due to the holder;
  • (2) no interest shall be deducted from the Pattom on such debt;  
  • (3) no reduction of debt or a corresponding enhancement of the Sirkar demand shall be made when such properties were transferred by sale.
  • The properties held on the tenures in question shall be recognised as so many favourably assessed lands or Inams and confirmed to the holders as such.

Clause 7 of Section 24 of the Proclamation provided as under:

  • “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”.(Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

Jenmi & Kudiyan Act (1896) and Amendments – Made Kudiyan, Full Owner

‘Jenmam land’ is defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation, V of 1071 (1896), as land (other than Pandaravaka, Sripandaravaka, Kandukrishi or Sircar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sircar accounts) which is either entirely exempt from Government tax or if assessed to public revenue, is subject to Rajabhogam only, and the occupancy right in which is created for a  money consideration (Kanom) and is also subject to the payment of Michavaram or customary dues and the payment of the renewal fees.

This definition is intended for the purposes of the Regulation, which regulates the relations between Janmis and their Kanapattom tenants. A Janmi has not only Kanapattom tenants but has other tenants as well holding on Adima Anubhogam, Thiruvulam and similar other tenures and the Regulation is not concerned with the latter class of tenants in whose case the ordinary law of landlord and tenant is applicable. Revenue law, on the other hand, makes no distinction between a Kanapattom tenant and a non Kanapattom tenant if he holds under a Janmi recognised in the revenue accounts.

Before Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, V of 1071 (1896), lands were granted as Inams by the Sovereign to Devaswoms and Brahmin jenmies. (Sreekumaran Kesavan Namboori v. Gopalan Madhavan, 1956 KLT 256).

The Jenmi & Kudiyan Regulation of 1071 ME (1896) was passed to stop the injustices perpetrated on the Kudiyans (bond-servants). It was amended by the Amendment Regulation of 1108 ME. The report of the Committee which led to the Amendment Regulation of 1108 ME reads as under:

  • “6. The outstanding feature of the amendment is that it lays the ghost of the Jenmis’ ownership for ever. The Jenmi has been expropriated and reduced to the position of a mere rentier. Refined considerations in the interests of the reciprocal rights and obligations have all been swept away. The solution of the problem looks like the cutting of the Gordian knot and the process is rather rough and coarse by the side of the Regulation of 1071. The measure is eminently democratic. To some extent it is socialistic also. For, one of the aims of some schools of social reformers, is to make the labourer free by breaking down the relationship of master and servant and similar situations involving superiority and inferiority by means of legislative interference. Whatever it be, to all appearance the jenmi has received the knock-out-blow. Yet it may be asked whether he has not good reason to come back smiling. For what he is entitled to by way of michavaram, renewal fees and customary dues has been consolidated and spread out with the advantage that he is assured of the payment without any worry. The burden on the Kudiyan is clearly fixed and the door has been closed on the chance of his escape. It remains to be seen who is the better for the present amendment of the Regulation”. (Quoted in: Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369)

The changes introduced by the Amended Regulation reads as under:

  • “i. Jenmi is not the owner of the land hereafter, his right being confined to the receipt of Jenmikaram as fixed by the law;
  • ii. the Kudiyan is the full owner of the land subject only to the payment of the Jenmikaram to the Jenmi;
  • iii. Jenmikaram is to be regulated and controlled by the Settlement Pattamicham and not by the Kanappattam contract except till the next general Land Revenue Settlement and, that even, only subject to certain statutory limitations;
  • iv. no renewals are hereafter obligatory;
  • v. Jenmis’ dues may be fractioned out and paid annually and in money as prescribed by the Statute;
  • vi. the rate of interest on arrears of Jenmikaram has been reduced to nine per cent whether payable in kind or in money when collected by the Jenmy direct, or under the provisions of chapter III or otherwise through Court, and to six per cent when collected by the Government under the provisions of chapter IV;
  • vii. The period of limitation for recovery of arrears of Jenmikaram has been reduced from the former period of twelve years to a period of six years;
  • viii. Government have undertaken the collection of Jenmikaram and payment thereof over to the Jenmi;
  • ix. in the case of Government realising the Jenmikaram under the provisions of chapter IV only the land on which the Jenmikaram is a charge shall be sold for arrears of jenmikaram, though this restriction may not apply as regards the movables of the defaulter;
  • x. Section 45 enacts an equitable method of the distribution between Jenmi and Kudiyan of compensation money granted by the Sircar when the Government compulsorily acquire or purchase jenmom lands”.

Cochin Settlement Proclamation of 1080 (1905)

As shown above, the Sirkar or Pandaravaka tenure holders of the Kingdom of Cochin were conferred with fixity of tenure by the Settlement Proclamation of 1080 (1905).

The Settlement Proclamation of 1905 covered all lands in the State, including lands held under concessional tenures or as tax-free. The Rules made under the Act contained the procedure for the issue of title deeds in respect of lands held under such grants. As stated above, Clause 13 of the Settlement Proclamation provided that the holders of Pandaravaka Verumpattom lands would acquire ‘full rights to the soil of the lands‘ they held. Settlement Proclamation of Cochin of 1080 (1905) Clause 13 provided as under:

  • “At present holders of Pandaravaka Verumpattom lands do not possess any property in the soil. As we are convinced that proprietorship in soil will induce a cultivator to improve his land and thereby add to agricultural prosperity of the country, we hereby declare that our Verumpattom holders of lands shall, after the new settlement has been introduced, acquire full rights to the soil of the lands they hold and that their rights shall remain undisturbed so long as they regularly pay the State revenue, provided that the rights to metals and minerals, possessed by the State in all lands under whatever tenures they are held, are reserved to the State”.

The Settlement Proclamation of 1905 was expressly repealed by the Land Tax Act of 1955 of the united State of Travancore-Cochin; but this Act, as a whole, was struck down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 552. In Kesavan Vadhyan Namboodri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1968 Ker 279, it was pointed out that this Proclamation of 1080 (1905) stood repealed by implication by the Land Tax Act of 1961.

Section 4 of the Cochin Verumpattomdars Act, 1118, reads as under:

  • “Notwithstanding any law, custom or contract to the contrary, every verumpattomdar shall have fixity of tenure in respect of his holding and shall not be evicted therefrom except as provided in Section 8 of this act.”

Section 4 concerned with the fixity of tenure, that is, fixity of the period of holding, possession or enjoyment of the land. The effect of such a mere conferment of fixity of tenure was not to continue the lease beyond the period specified therein, but to give to the person who continues to remain in possession of the land after the lease has come to an end the status of a statutory tenant. (Ittiravi Namboodiri Vs. Krishnankutty Menon AIR 1964 Ker 298. Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan V. J. R. Thakur, AIR 1958 SC 789, referred to.)

Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan (Amendment) Act, 1935

‘Proceedings of the Travancore Sri Chitra State Council’ recorded the speech of Kayalam Paramesvaran Pillai (Additional Head Sircar Vakil) while moving the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation (Amendment) Bill, on 28th May 1935, as under:

  • “Sir, I beg to move that the Travancore Jenmi Kudiyan Regulation (Amendment) Bill, as passed by the Sri Mulam Assembly, be taken into consideration. I am sure that honourable members have carefully gone through the Bill and that it is not necessary for me to explain the principles underlying the Bill at great length. It will be noticed that the main point for which this Bill is proposed is in regard to jenmikaram in respect of cherikal lands held on Kanapattom. Honourable members know what a kanapattom transaction is. It is a demise by a jenmi to a person called kudiyan in respect of a Jenmam land on receipt by the jenmi of an amount as loan, called Kanam. The kudiyan has to pay a rent or pattom to the jenmi. The jenmi has to pay interest in respect of the kanam money advanced. The net result is that the kudiyan pays to the jenmi the rent or pattom minus the interest and this residual rent is called michavaram. Besides this michavaram the kudiyan has also to pay certain customary dues and periodical fees. Under the Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation as amended, all these dues have been consolidated and their yearly value has been taken and fixed as the amount payable every year in lieu of all dues to the jenmi. This is the jenmivaram and this law further lays down what shall be the rent payable and this is called the jenmikaram. The jenmikaram may be “said to be the statutory rent and the jenmivaram the contract rent, and it has been laid down that in the case of Jenmom lands generally jenmivaram shall be the jenmikaram. But in the case of cherikal lands a differential provision is made and it has been laid down that in respect of cherikal lands that jenmikaram shall be the settlement pattamicham minus the interest on the kanam amount. Perhaps I may have to explain what settlement pattamicham is. Honourable members know that settlement pattom is the pattern fixed by Government in respect of Sirkar lands in the settlement of tax. The Settlement Pattamicham means the settlement pattom fixed at the settlement minus the tax actually payable in respect of the land. In respect of cherikal lands what has been fixed is that the kudiyan shall pay to the jenmi the settlement pattamicham minus the interest on the kanam amount. It has been assumed that the settlement pattamicham is the utmost fair rent that may be paid by the kudiyan to the jenmi. But it has been noticed in actual fact that the interest on the kanam is more than the settlement pattamicham, with the result that in many cases the jenmikaram is nil or a minus quantity. This was not the intention of the Legislature. Therefore provision is now proposed, in this Bill, that in respect of cherikal lands either the jenmivaram or settlement pattamicham minus the interest on kanam amount shall be the jenmikaram whichever is greater. I am sure that this will be admitted to be a reasonable arrangement. This is the main principle of the Bill.”

Effect of Travancore Govt. Leases after Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061

During the second half of the 19th century several Royal Proclamations were promulgated with a view to confer rights in the land to the tenants who were the real cultivators. Majority of the people were engaged in agriculture; but the lands belonged to Jenmies (Sircar, Brahmins or Devaswoms). The cultivators held the land under lease arrangement known as Pattom, Otti, Inam and Viruthi etc. One of the important Regulations came in the line of agrarian reforms was the Royal Proclamation of 1040 ME (1865 AD). It pertained to Pattom (lease) tenements created (by Sircar) on Sirkar lands known as Pandaravaka lands. It is exalted as the Magna Carta of peasants of Travancore it being led to conferring land to tillers, step by step.

Paragraph 9 of the Royal Proclamation of 1061 (1886) brought in further radical changes as regards Pandarapattam lands. It said as under:

  • “These lands were originally the absolute property of Government, and the tenants were mere tenants-at-will; but, by the Royal Proclamation of the 21st Edavam 1040, Government generously waived all right to these lands, and declared them to be the private, hereitable, saleable property of the holders.”

Section 22 of the Settlement Proclamation of 1061 (1886) made further changes in land tenure.

Those changes were:

  • (1)   no debt shall be recognised as due to the holder;
  • (2) no interest shall be deducted from the Pattom on such debt;  
  • (3) no reduction of debt or a corresponding enhancement of the Sirkar demand shall be made when such properties were transferred by sale.
  • The properties held on the tenures in question shall be recognised as so many favourably assessed lands or Inams and confirmed to the holders as such.

Clause 7 of Section 24 of the Proclamation provided as under:

  • “There shall be no further interference on the part of the Government with these free holds, except such as might be necessary for the punctual realization of the quit rent payable”.(Quoted in: Padmanabharu Govindaru  v. The State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86.)

Now a question arises: What is the impact of 1040 and 1061 (1886) Proclamations over the ‘Government Land Leases’ made after 1061 (1886)? Do such leased lands qualify as “estate” under Article 31A of the Constitution?

The legitimate answer is that the lands leased out (by the Government) after 1061 (1886) do not acquire the rights of ‘permanency of tenure’ or attain the ‘proprietary interest’ conferred by the Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061. If such rights are axiomatically conferred as a matter of course, the result would be that the Government cannot ‘lease’ lands (after the Proclamations), for, the lease character would be lost at the moment it is made.

In Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez (five Judge Bench), 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168 (Per PT Raman Nayar, CJ, T Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P Unnikrishna Kurup, JJ.), concluded that the land covered by the Royal Proclamations of 1040 and 1061 were “estates” falling under Art. 31A of the Constitution. It was on the finding that the Proclamation “secured permanency of tenure”, and “proprietary interest” in the soil. It was observed as under:

  • “7. It is impossible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in this case that,even after the Proclamation of 1040, the holders of these lands had no proprietary interest whatsoever in the soil and remained tenants in the strict sense of that term, with only the right of enjoyment, the only difference being that they secured permanency of tenure, the Government still remaining the full and absolute proprietor of the soil.”

Therefore, there is a clear difference between leases made before and after the Proclamations, and the rights conferred by the Proclamations do not apply to leases made after them.

Meaning of the Word ‘Thettom’

  • Generally meant – acquisition by Mortgage.
  • When ‘Thettom’ refers to a property dealing with a Jenmam holder, it can be any ‘subordinate tenure falling short of the full proprietary title‘.
  • When it refers to a property dealing with a Non-Jenmom holder, it may mean a sale’

As regards ‘Thettom’, Raman Menon, C.J., said, in Augusti v. The Dewan of Travancore, 8 Travancore LJ 438, as under:

  • “In S.A. 17 of 1074, this Court remarked:-‘In the Sirkar registry of 1011, the plaint property is entered as ‘Thettom’ in the name of defendants’ Tarwad.
  • That expression, according to its ordinary meaning, implies at least a mortgage lien, if not more, as held by this Court in A.S.166 of 1070 and A.S. 285 of 1071. It always implies something more than a simple lease’.
  • In S.A. 61 of 1075, the terms was taken to be generic and to include ‘all subordinate tenures falling short of the full proprietory title‘.
  • In S.A. 302 of 1075, it was observed that the word ‘Thettom’, as applied to Nambudiri Jenmies, had been held by this court to mean ordinarily a Kanom.
  • In S.A. 48 of 1076, Vencoba Chariar, C.J. and Mr. Justice Kunhiraman Nair construed the words thus:- ‘The chief ground of the plaintiff’s second appeal is that in arriving at this finding the lower courts have not given sufficient weight to the fact appearing from the Ext. B – an old Revenue account – in which the land in dispute is entered as ‘Thettam’ from plaintiff’s Illom; but the word ‘Thettom’ is a somewhat ambiguous one and though, as remarked in the case in 15 TLR 161 and in other cases, it is generally used in the Revenue accounts to signify the Kanom tenure under Jenmies, it is also sometimes used to denote other subordinate tenures‘.
  • In S.A. 343 of 1078, we find the following remarks:-‘Thettom ordinarily means a’Kanom’, and in any case, a derivative title when used in connection with Brahmaswam or Devaswom properties, as in the present case’.
  • Lastly, in A.S. Nos. 59 and 101 of 1083, Sadasiva Iyer, C.J., and Sankara Menon, J., observed thus:-‘Mr. Kochukrishna Marar quotes 15 TLR 161 and says the word ‘Thettom’ means a Kanom or mortgage.
  • No doubt, in the case of Jenmies, it has been so held; but we doubt whether in the case of non jenmies, any meaning other than the ordinary meaning of the word can be given to the word ‘Thettom’. The plaintiffs are Nairs and the tenure claimed is not Jenmom. The ordinary meaning of the word is acquisition. We are inclined to hold that a word ‘Thettom’, in cases of this sort, means only sale’.”
  • (Quoted in: Travancore Devaswom Board v. Uzhithiraru Uzhithiraru, 1957 KLT 315)

In Damodaran v. Sankaranarayanan Namboothiripad, ILR 1963-2 Ker. 707; 1964 KLT 25, the High Court referred to thanathu thettom land (nilam); and observed – it conveys the idea of ‘acquisition’.

‘Pandarappattoms’ before 1061 (1886) were Recorded as “Thettoms”

The ‘pandaravakappattoms’ before 1061 (1886) to which benefits of proprietary rights were conferred under the Proclamations (1040 and 1061) were recorded in 1910 Travancore Settlement Register as “Thettoms” (such as Devaswom Thettom, Namboori Thettom etc.)

  • Note: When those properties (upon which Brhamins or Devaswoms had pandarappattom rights) were sold or leased, they were termed in the transfer-deeds as “Devaswom Thettom”, “Namboori Thettom”.

Read Connected Blogs:

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLiveFree’? Click here – “How to Subscribe Free“

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Power of attorney

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Will

Arbitration

Divorce

Negotiable Instruments Act

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment