Freehold Property in Law

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Abstract

  • In land-law, FREEHOLD means ‘Free from Hold’ of anyone else; or in complete ownership.
  • It doesn’t mean that such lands are free from payment of tax.
  • In common law countries,freehold‘ is used to contrast leasehold.
  • A ‘janmam’ right is the freehold interest in a property.
  • Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955 (State of Travancore-Cochin) did not change the character of the holdings. Lease holdings of the Edavagais continued as lease holdings, but with liability to pay Tax.

Freehold means ‘Free from hold’ of Anyone Else

  • Freehold means ‘Free from hold’ of anyone else; or in complete ownership. It is also used to contra-distinct, leasehold nature of land (a leasehold land is ‘held by another’).
  • It doesn’t mean that such lands are free from payment of tax or revenue to the Government.
  • “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).
  • A janmam right is the freehold interest in a property situated in Kerala.

‘Freeholds (Adhikara Ozhivus)’ in Edavagai Lands of Travancore

In erstwhile Travancore,

  • Edapally Swaroopam, Kilimanoor Kottaram, Poonjar Koickal and Vanjipuzha Madom

administered Edavagais of –

  • Edapally, Kilimanoor, Poonjar and Vanjipuzha.

The chiefs or administers of those Edavagais were vassals of erstwhile Kingdom of Travancore. Those chiefs were allowed to administer (collect rent or tax from the tenants) of those Edavagais. The Travancore Govt. did not collect tax directly from those Edavagai Lands. Therefore, it was said that those lands were ‘freeholds (Adhikara Ozhivus)’. 

In Harska Trust v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, the reason for non-collection of Tax from Edavagais was also laid down as under:

  • “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 Rajabhogam from the jenmis inside the Edavagais (See: 1945 TLR 581 and 728).”

“Freehold” (also) used to denote a Class, Exempted from “Payment of Tax”

Travancore State Manual Vol. III published by the Travancore Government in 1940, while listing various classes of jenmom lands, it says about a class 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. They were also called ‘freehold’ (though generally the term ‘freehold’ conveyed another idea).

‘Jenmam’ (freehold right) is ‘Estate’ within Article 31A

  • In K. K. Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080 and Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, 1962 Ker LT 913 :  AIR 1963 Ker 86 it was held that jenmom right was the freehold right with ‘proprietary interest’.

The concepts on ‘janmam’ continued even after introduction of Tax system by Government. ‘Jenmom’ was taken 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. 31A (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)

“Janmam right” can be vested with Sircar (Not with holders, alone)

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 (not solely with holders of the land). This land is dealt with under the heading – Pandaravaka Lands, i.e. lands belonging to the Sircar.

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 “estate” and it is the freehold interest.
  • The Sircar itself is one of these janmis and 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.

Grant’ will not confer Absolute Proprietary Rights

In State of Kerala v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272 the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the the company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession/granted Area. With respect to the same property  it was held in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd., (1991) 2 SCC 272as under:

  • “The Trial Court in a detailed and well-reasoned judgment dismissed the suit of the company. The Trial Court on the interpretation of First Concession (Exhibit P- 1), Second Concession (Exhibit P-2), deed of ratification (Exhibit P-62) and the Government agreement with the Society dated August 2, 1866 (Exhibit P-64) came to the conclusion that the company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and timber in the said area. It was held that the Poonjar Chief had only conveyed heritable and transferable possessory rights over the Concession area to the grantee. It was also held that absolute rights over the trees and timber in the Concession Area did not pass to the grantee and it had only the right to use and remove timber subject to the restrictions imposed in the deeds of conveyance/ratification.”

The Apex Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in George A Leslie v. State of Kerala, [1969] K. L.T. 378, K. K. Mathew, J. (as the learned Judge then was) that interpreted the clause in a similar deed.

Then it is observed further:

  • We agree with the interpretation given to the clause by Mathew, J. and hold that the respondent- company did not acquire absolute proprietary rights over the Concession Area or the trees and the timber therein.”

The Apex Court (in State of Kerala v. Kannan Devan Hills, (1991) 2 SCC 272) upheld and approved “the judgment and findings” of the Trial Court.

History of Land Tax Collection from Edavagai Lands

Harska Trust v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, 1960 Ker LT 378, clearly lays down the history. It is pointed out that the collection of Basic-Tax was first introduced by the Travancore Land Tax Proclamation, 1121. Sec. 6 of the Proclamation provided that the Proclamation would not be applicable to certain classes of lands. One of those classes was-

As pointed out in Harska Trust v. State of Kerala, ILR  1960 Ker 345, the next enactment was the Travancore-Cochin Land Tax Act, 1955 which came into force on 1-4-1956. Sec. 17 of the Land Tax Act, 1955, repealed the Travancore Land Tax Proclamation, 1121 (1946).

Jenmam – Proprietary right in the soil

In K. K. Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala, AIR 1960 SC 1080, the Supreme Court, while dealing with Article 31A of the Constitution, said:

  • “Under the definition, any jenmom right in Kerala is an ‘estate’. A jenmom 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 jenmom interest may, therefore be described as ‘proprietary interest of a landlord in lands‘.”

Edavagai Rights Act, 1955 did Not change Character of Holdings

The object behind the act is very clear – it was only to ‘acquire’ the rights of the Edavagais; it was not to change the character of the land held by the tenants or purchasers.

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

In Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KLT 369, it is pointed out analysing Edavagai Rights Acquisition Act, 1955 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.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – How to Subscribe free 



Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Power of attorney

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Principles and Procedure

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Land LawsTransfer of Property Act

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Law on Documents

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Will

Arbitration

Divorce/Marriage

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

Leave a Comment