Revenue Settlements and Settlement Registers of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar

1910 Settlement Register of Travancore: Basic Record of Land matters

Connected Blogs:

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Part I

Survey & Settlement

The state of Kerala was established in 1956. It consisted of three regions – Travancore, Cochin and Malabar. The state of Travancore–Cochin was organised in 1949 by merging the Travancore State and Cochin States. In 1956, Malabar district and Kasargod area of former Madras State was added to form Kerala. Each of this area had its own Survey & Settlement methods. https://dslr.kerala.gov.in/en/brief-history

Settlement in Cochin & Malabar

The Directorate of Survey & Land Records  presents further as under:

  • “The last settlement was conducted in Cochin during 1905-1909 following the settlement Proclamation of 1905 and in Malabar during 1926-1934 according to the resettlement Manual of 1930.”(https:// dslr.kerala.gov.in/ en/brief-history)

In the Malabar area of the erstwhile Madras State, settlement activities took place from 1894 to 1905. The lands in Malabar had been treated as being held on Ryotwari tenure. The re-settlement operations were conducted in the Malabar area during 1930-1933, under which the lands in the Malabar area were settled as lands held under the Ryotwari tenure and records – Settlement Registers and A Register – were made. ( See: Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 101; M. J. Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 Ker 285.)

Revenue Settlements of Travancore

‘Kettezhuthu’ and Kandezhuthu’

First attempt to make a settlement in Travancore was in 1712.  It was on ‘Kettezhuthu’ (what is heard) basis; i.e., on discussions with landholders. Pattas were issued after the settlement. In 1775 a complete survey was conducted on ‘Kandezhuthu’ (what is seen) basis. Pattas were issued to the holders on this basis also.

Resurvey with the scale if a 10-Feet-Rod (15 links)

Complete resurvey of garden lands was conducted in 1836. This time measurements were made with the scale if a 10-Feet-Rod (15 links) (See: V. Purushothaman v. Asokan 10.11.2016, Kerala High Court, A.Hariprasad, J.) Pattas were issued this time also.

1910 Settlement (chain- survey)

The last settlement of Travancore was during 1882 to 1909. The survey (chain- survey) thereon was commenced in 1885 and finalised in 1910.

Travancore – A brief history of Survey & Settlement

The Directorate of Survey & Land Records, Kerala  places the following history:

“A brief history of Survey & Settlement is given below:

  1. Year 1712:

A complete survey and settlement was conducted. The survey was a ‘Kettezhuthu’ Record of “what is heard” and was based on discussions with landholders. The holders were issued pattas after settlement.

  1. Year 1738 to 1748:

This settlement was confined to the lands belonging to Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple. No measurement of land was conducted.

  1. Year 1775:

Ramayyan Dalava conducted a complete Survey and settlement. Holders were issued pattas. The nature of survey is not known.

  1. Year 1801:

A complete survey was conducted. This was a ‘Kandezhuthu’. (Record of what is seen). The tenures were similar to the previous settlement. Pattas were also issued after the settlement.

  1. Year 1817:

Year 1817:- This was only a settlement of garden lands. Pattas were issued subsequent to the settlement.

  1. Year 1836:

A complete resurvey of garden lands was conducted. Side measurements were made with a ‘10’ Feet Rod. Rough Pattas were issued after the settlements.

  1. Year 1882 to 1909:

This is the latest settlement record. A scientific Survey was conducted and pattas were issued for all the land owners.” (https:// dslr.kerala.gov.in/ en/brief-history)

Revenue Settlement Register of Travancore in 1910, Basic Record of Land matters

The Kerala High Court held in Mohandas v. Santhakumari Amma, 2018-3 KLT 606 as under:

  • “We notice that, a new survey and settlement was undertaken in the erstwhile Travancore State for the purpose of putting in place a sound Revenue administration. Accordingly, it appears that a complete survey and reassessment of the entire State ’embracing an accurate measurement, demarcation, mapping and valuation of properties of every description and a registration of titles, as the basis of a sound Revenue Administration’ was carried out. On the basis of such a statement a proclamation was issued by the Maharaja of Travancore on 14 th Kumbhom 1061 corresponding to 24th February 1886.”

Revenue Records – Maintained Promptly

The Land Revenue Department was one of the main departments of the Travancore Government.  The ownership remained with the Jenmies and Sircar (Government). The agriculturists, who formed majority of population, had to pay various kinds of remunerations to the Janmies and the Sircar (Government),  based on the nature of tenancy and the nature of the ‘Jenmam (Janmam) right’. The lease arrangements were known by various nomenclatures based on the conditions of tenancies. Several enactments were made for proper collection of Taxes, and management of the Govt. lands and the lands upon which the tenants toiled. The Revenue Records were prepared and maintained promptly.

Chitta and Adangal in Madras and Andhra Pradesh

Chitta: Chitta is a revenue document maintained in Taluk office. It contains extent of land, name of owner and the type of land (wet/dry, irrigated/rainfed, etc.).

Adangal: Adangal is also a revenue record, prepared after surveying the land, that contains details about the land, such as the ownership, extent, classification of land, and details of cultivators. It is taken as a document for showing the ownership and possession of land. (See: D. Rajamanickam v. M.  Pasupathiammal, 2019-2 Mad LJ 208; N. Chandrasekaran v. Arulmighu Thiruvatteeswarar Thirukkoil, 2020-1 LW 631; 2020-5 Mad LJ 227)

Private Janmam in Malabar Area – Ended By 1934

In Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 101, it was pointed out with referenceto the Madras District Gazetteer, Malabar as regards the history of settlement (1900 -1904) and re-settlement (1931-1934) and as regards the preparation of Adangal Registers after the settlement as under:

  • “67. In the Madras District Gazetteer, Malabar, by Inis, 1951 Edition, at page 344, it is stated that the settlement was introduced into the eight plain Taluks of Malabar between 1900 and 1904and the Revenue system of the District has been brought into line with that of the rest of the Presidency, due allowance being made for special local conditions.
  • 68. Dealing with the re-settlement, it is stated in the same Gazetteer, at page 848, that it took place between 1931 and 1934, and that the re-settlement was done because the term of 30 years for which the then existing rates of land assessment were sanctioned had expired between 1929-30 and 1932-33- A list of the taluks giving particulars as to when the last settlement expired and the new settlement came into operation, is also given at the same page.
  • 69. At page 349 of the same book, among the special features of the re-settlement, it is mentioned that the terms “janmabhogam” or “private janmam” were replaced by new holdings and old holdings respectively. That is, in the Adangal Registers etc., maintained after the settlement was introduced for the first time in 1900 and 1904, the lands of all the jenmis appear to have been shown as private janmam but in the re-settlement the register shows them as old holdings.”

Ryotwari Settlement in Malabar Area

In Balmadies Plantations Ltd. v. The State of T.N., AIR 1972 SC 2240 while examining the status of land holders under ryotwari settlement it was pointed out that this system was brought about by Col. Read in 1792 consequent to ceding of territories by Tippu Sultan, as described in the Manual of Administration quoted by Baden-Powell, in Vol. III of Land Systems of British India.

Private Janmam in Malabar Area – Ended By1934

Lands held under Ryotwari tenure after Ryotwari Settlement

In Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 101, it is also pointed out that notwithstanding the introduction of the Ryotwari settlement in Malabar area between 1900 and 1904, certain lands were shown as ‘private janmam’ as distinguished from ‘Government Janmam’. And, added as under:

  • “The practice of treating the properties of persons like the petitioner as private janmam has been completely given the go-by, at any rate, after the resettlement during 1931-1934.”

In Kannan Devan Hills Produce v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301; 1972-2 SCC 218, it was pointed out that it was held by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Sukapuram Sabhayogam v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Kerala 101 that the lands, after 1934, were ‘held under Ryotwari tenure after the introduction of the Ryotwari Settlement in the Malabar area of Kerala State’.

Part II

LAND TENURES.

760 Types of Tenures in Travancore: In ‘Historical Introduction to the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Working of the Land Tribunals’, PN Prabhakaran Pillai, Cochin University Law Review 1, No. 1 (1974), says as under:

  • “The land tenures that existed in the former Travancore area were very complex and special tenures and sub-tenures were numerous It may be seen that there were 760 types of tenures including sub-tenures in Travancore area alone. At the last Revenue Settlement’, an endeavour was made to systematise and simplify the tenures as far as possible. After the settlement, the number of tenures were reduced to a considerable minimum. The numerous tenures which have been recognised at the settlement may be generally traced to one or other of main two heads, viz., Sirkar or Pandaravaka and Jenmom.”

Land-Tenures – in Settlement (1910)

According to the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Volume III (1915), the tenures fall under two main heads:

  • (1) Sirkar or Pandaravaga (By virtue of Proclamation of 1040 (1865) and 1061 (1886), all Sircar-pattom-lands were converted into full proprietary-lands);
  • (2) Janmam (Note: Janmam includes Devaswom & Brahmaswom. )

In Settlement (1910), numerous tenures had been recognized. For practical purposes, as per the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, the tenures were classified as under:

  • 1. Sirkar or Pandaravaga
  • 2. Sirkar Devaswom vaga
  • 3. Kandukrishi
  • 4. Sreepadam vaga
  • 5. Sree pandaravaga
  • 6. Janmam (Includes Devaswom, Brahmaswom)

1. Sirkar or Pandaravaga:

This tenure represents Sirkar as the landlord.  The tenures fall under the following heads:

  • a)  Pandarapattom,
    • Pandarapattom was originally in the nature of lease without any proprietary or transferable right.  By the royal proclamations, the holders of these lands were given with full proprietary rights and declared to be private, heritable and transferrable property.  Puthuval lands came under this tenure. 
  • b)  Otti
    • It was originally in the nature of a mortgage.  It stood as a real or constructive loan by the State.  Interest was deducted from Pattom to be paid by the holder.  He had also to pay Rajabhogam (tax).
  • c)  Enams
    • Enams were service enams or personal enams.  Service enams were inalienable.  It continue as long as the holder was in service.  Personal enams were given to support individuals or families.  Such properties could have been transferred by the holders.
  • d)  Viruthi
    • It stood analogous to service enams.  But had permanency if the holder continued his service regularly.  When he died the holding passed to legal heirs subject to certain payments.
  • e)  Special tenures
    • It was in the nature of enam which received special treatment.
  • f)  Karamolivu
    • All Lands except janmam included under this head.  The land was tax-free.

2. Sirkar Devaswom vaga

  • The lands under this head were originally janmam lands or private property of Devaswoms.  They were held on venpattom tenure.  Later on, Sirkar took over the Devaswoms and the lands were treated as Sirkar lands.  Subsequently, Sirkar Devaswom lands were separated from Sirkar lands; and separate accounts were kept.

3. Kandukrishi

  • It was the home-farms or the private property of the sovereign.  The tenants had no right in such properties.

4. Sreepadam vaga

  • Sreepadam lands were-
    • (i) thelands comprised in the free-hold villages of Idakkode, Illamba, Mudakkal, Alamkodu, Avanavancherry, Attingal and Kilattingal in the Chirayinkil Taluk, the revenue from which was wholly assigned in favour of the Sreepadam Palace; and
    • (ii) other lands not being pandaravaka lands situate in the State of Kerala and owned by the Sreepadam Palace (See: The Sreepadam Lands Enfranchisement Act, 1969).

5. Sree Pandaravaga

  • Sree Pandaravaka land was the land owned by the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and registered in the revenue records as ‘Sree Pandaravaka’ (See: The Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting And Enfranchisement) Act, 1971).
  • Sree Padmanabha Swamy Temple had originally been administered by Madathil Pillamars. The lands that belonged to the Temple were in the possession of various persons under different tenures. All such persons were liable to pay tax as ‘Rajabhogam’. The grants or Inams were made by the Kingdom for the services rendered. Such Inams included tenures like Adima, Anubhogam, Thiruvulam, Thiruvadayalam etc. The Madathil Pillamars collected the Michavaram due to Devaswom on those lands to be utilized for the poojas and other rituals to be performed in the temple.
  • When the Revenue Settlement was prepared (in 1910), all the properties that were classified under the names of the different Madoms were brought under the class ‘Sree Pandaravaka’. The lands that were in the names of the family members, received as personal Inams were described as Kudumbaporuthy lands.

6. Janmam (Thanathu)

  • It was the properties owned by Janmies.  Such lands were exempted from tax.
  • Regulation of 1071 (1896) attracted these properties.  The tax under Rajabhogam had to be paid for this land.   But Devaswom and Brahmaswom thanathu lands, though came under the head ‘Janmam’, and were exempted from tax, only so long as they remained unalienated.  When alienated it was charged under Rajabhogam assessment.  Devaswom and Brehmaswom properties could have been subjected to outright sale.

Registered lands

The Registered Lands include, inter alia,

  • (a) Pandaravaka lands and
  • (b) Janmam lands.

Pandaravaka or Sircar-lands are lands of which the State is the landlord or Jenmi. Whatever rights which vest in the ryots (tenants) in Govt. lands are taken as derived from the Sircar.

Registered lands were that included in Sirkar Revenue accounts as lands held by or granted to individuals, families, institutions, etc.

  • The revenue from these lands fell under the head, ‘Ayacut’ or ‘Settled Revenue’.
  • Each of this field had been surveyed and settled.
  • The functions of the Land Revenue Department were to collect the revenue and see that no encroachment was made on adjoining Sirkar lands (puramboke, tharisu, forests).

Our Apex Court in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2301, 1972-2 SCC 218, held as under:

  • “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 Janmi and whatever rights which vest in the ryots are  derived from the Sircar.’ “

‘Jenmom’ was proprietary interest with Liability to Pay Tax (Freehold)

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. 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 (1896), 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 (1896), 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”.

Concept of ‘Freehold lands’

“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 circumstance. These were the special properties given by the Ruler to certain individuals considering their valid services or to certain institutions including temples.

Status in ‘Janmom’ cannot be Transferred

Theoretically, status in ‘Janmom’ cannot be transferred (it being an inherent right attached to land); though ‘rights in Janmam’ can be transferred.

Sale of Janmam Properties were Recorded as “Thettoms” in Settlement Register

In 1910 Travancore Settlement Register (and in the sale deeds), lands sold by Janmam holders were recorded as “Thettoms” (Devaswom Thettom/Namboori Thettom etc.).

  • Note: In the 1910 Settlement Register Janmam properties (with Brahmins and Devaswoms) were recorded as “Thanathu”.
  • When lands were classified under various heads, ‘Janmam’ lands were denoted as ‘Tanathu’ in the Settlement Register..

Read blog: Pandaravakapattom and Travancore Royal Proclamations of 1040 (1865) and 1061 (1886)

Meaning of the Word ‘Thettom’

  • Generally meant – acquisition by Mortgage.
  • When ‘Thettom’ refers to a property dealing with a Jenmam (Janmam) 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’.

Pandarapattom lands in Cochin & Travancore – Proprietary Right in the Soil

In Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694, the Supreme Court held (by majority, P.B. Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta; and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, dissenting) that Pandarappattom properties come within ‘estate’ under Article 31A of the Constitution. The Apex Court considered the proclamation issued by his Highness Sir Rama Varma Raja of Cochin on March 10, 1905. Clause 13 that rendered ‘full rights to the soil of the lands they hold’.

The Supreme Court (majority) held, with respect to Cochin Regulation, 1905 as under:

  • “It would thus be seen that under clause 13 the person holding lands on the Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure is not a tenant. He is given the proprietary right in the soil itself, subject of course to the rights as to metals and minerals reserved in favour of the State, indeed, the whole scheme of the new Proclamation appears to be to change the character of the possession of the Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure-holder from that of a tenant into that of a proprietor-holder. It is true that he is made liable to pay half of the net produce and that may appear to be a little too high, but the measure of the levy will not convert what is intended to be a recovery of assessment Into a recovery of rent. The proprietor of the land held on Verumpattom tenure is nevertheless a proprietor of the land and he holds the land subject to his liability to pay the assessment to the State. It is not difficult to imagine that in a fairly large number of lands held by Pandaravaka Verumpattom tenure-holders the holders in turn would let out the the lands to the cultivators and thus would come into existence a local equivalent of the class of intermediaries. Land revenue record is required to be prepared by the Proclamation and relevant entries showing the extent of the properties belonging to the respective holders and the details about their liability to pay the assessment are intended to be shown in the said record. In our opinion, it would not be reasonable to hold that the ‘lands held by the petitioner under the Pandaravaha Verumpattom tenure do not confer on him the proprietary right at all but make him a tenant of the State“.

But, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J., while descending, observed as under:

  • “In this connection I might usefully refer to a proclamation of the ruler of Travancore of 1865 (1040 M. E.) regarding Sarkar-pattom lands, with the observation that subject to variations dependent on local usages, the system of land tenure and the concepts as regards the rights of property in land were substantially similar in Travancore and Cochin. Sarkar-pattom lands were what might be termed ‘Crown lands’ of which the ruler was deemed to be the Jenmi or the landlord. Previous to the proclamation the lands were legally capable of being resumed by the ruler, though this was seldom done and the cultivators were not legally entitled to transfer their rights and where this was done the Government had the right to ignore the transaction. The fact that the cultivator was conceived of as having no proprietary interest on the land also bore adversely on the State since the State was deprived of the means of realising any arrears of revenue by bringing the holding to sale. It was to remedy this situation that the proclamation was issued and the preamble and its terms carry the impress of the impact of the ryotwari system of Madras.”

After referring the 1040 (1865) Proclamation, Ayyangar, J. said as under:

  • “The language employed in the proclamation is of significance. It speaks of the relinquishment or withdrawal of the right of the State and not of the conferment of a right on the ryot so as to render the ryot a grantee from the State, just in line with the Hindu Law theory of the proprietorship of the soil vesting in the occupant-cultivator.”

In Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86 (FB), in spite of the decision in Purushothaman Nambudiri v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 694 (pertained to Cochin), it was held that Pandarapattom (Pandaravaka pattom, Pandaravakappattom, or Pandarappattom) lands in the Travancore area cannot have the protection of Article 31A of the Constitution.

  • Note: Overruling Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, it was held in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1; AIR 1971 Ker 168, that Pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State was ‘estate’ within the meaning of Article 31-A(2)(a).

Analysing the 1040 ME Travancore Proclamation, it was held by the High Court in Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala as under:

  • “11. The provisions of the Proclamation do not, in our opinion, confer on the tenants absolute proprietary rights in the soil. There is no clause by which the Sirkar parted with all rights in favour of the tenants and in the absence of such a provision, the holders of such lands can only be treated as holding such lands on perpetual leases.”

Part III

Pandarapattom and Royal Pattom Proclamations of 1040 and 1061

Royal Proclamations of 1040 (1865) and 1061 (1886) bound only Travancore Govt. Leases or ‘Pandarappattoms’.

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 definite finding that –

  • the Proclamation “secured permanency of tenure” (to the tenants),
  • conferred (on the tenants) “proprietary interest” in the soil; and
  • the Government did not remain as the full and absolute proprietor

The Court said as under:

  • “7. It is impossible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in this case that, evenafter 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.”

Effect of the Proclamations over ‘Government Land Leases’ after 1061 (1886)?

Now a question arises:

  • What is the impact of 1040 and 1061 (1886) Proclamations over the ‘Government Land Leases’ (Pandaravakappattoms) made after 1061 (1886)?

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 of permanency and ‘proprietary interest’ 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.

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.

Pandarapattom Confers Proprietary Rights:  Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez Case – 

As stated above, Govindaru Nambooripad v. State of Kerala, AIR 1963 Ker 86, was overruled by the larger Bench in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168, and it was held that Pandarapattom land in the Travancore area of the State was ‘estate’ within the meaning of Article 31-A(2)(a). (See: Harrisons Malayalam Limited v. State of Kerala, 2018-2 KHC 719; 2018-2 KLT 369).

It was found in Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez case that by the Proclamation of 1040 (1865 AD), all Sircar-pattom-lands were converted into full proprietary-lands, and rights on tenants of Pandarapattom lands had thenceforth been conferred with proprietary-rights.

In Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 Ker LT 1, AIR 1971 Ker 168, it was observed as under:

Per PT Raman Nayar, CJ, T Krishnamoorthy Iyer, P Unnikrishna Kurup, JJ.:

  • “11. …. We have already shown how, in the face of the Proclamation of 1040, it is impossible to regard the holders of these lands as tenants in the strict sense of that term having only the right to enjoy the land and no interest in the land as such. We have also drawn attention to the fact that what they pay to the Government is, under the very terms of the Proclamation, assessment or land tax, in other words, land revenue, and not rent properly so-called. As stated in 1962 Ker LT 913 = (AIR 1963 Ker 86 FB). with reference to contemporary documents, the avowed purpose of the Proclamation of 1040 was to place pandarapattam lands on the same footing as ryotwari lands in the neighbouring province of Madras, and wo have no doubt that it succeeded in doing so. If the relations between the holder of a land and the Government are placed on the same footing as the relations between the holder of ryotwari land and the Government, it seems to us that it necessarily follows that the land is held under ryotwari settlement–it is the factual relationship and not the label that counts and no concept of legal rights is involved. ….

Per KK Mathew, J.

  • 17……. To my mind the terms of the Proclamation leave no doubt that full proprietary interest has been conferred upon the holders of pandarapattom lands. ….Clause (2) is the pivotal clause; and it provides that the ryots holding such lands may regard them fully private, saleable and otherwise heritable and transferable property. Clause (4) guarantees the continued undisturbed enjoyment of the land so long as the appointed assessment is paid. Clause (6) makes it clear that the lands will be resumable by the State like other jenmom or private land only for public purpose and when resumed for such purposes compensation will be paid by the Sirkar not only for the improvements but also for the full market value of the property. Clause (7) provided that the rights conferred by the Proclamation would not in any way affect the right of the Sirkar to regulate land tax or to resume escheats or to confiscate the property of criminals. Clauses (6) and (7) are very significant. What are reserved to the Sirkar by Clauses (6) and (7) are not anv proprietary rights in the land. The rights which inhere in every sovereign in respect of every property within his jurisdiction like eminent domain, the right to impose or regulate tax, to resume escheats, to confiscate property of criminals, are alone reserved by those clauses. They not only do not derogate from the grant of full proprietary interest made by Clauses (1), (2) and (4), but would highlight that no proprietary rights have been reserved to the State. If the sovereign was careful to reserve to himself in respect of these lands only those rights which appertain to sovereignty and not any right which relates to dominium, that is a clear indication that no right relating to dominium was intended to be retained by the Sirkar. Even if the clauses were absent, the Sirkar would have those rights as they appertain to sovereignty and not to dominium. In other words, if by way of abundant caution the clauses reserved to the Sirkar only rights which appertain to sovereignty, there was absolutely no reason why the rights, if any, relating to dominium or ownership were not reserved, if the sovereign intended to retain any right in respect of the lands.….. I think, a holder of pandarapattom land satisfies even the orthodox definition   of ownership by Austin.   Austin defines the right of ownership as a–“right indefinite in point of user, unrestricted in point of disposition, and unlimited in point of duration, over a determinate thing.” (See ‘Jurisprudence’ by Austin, 3rd Edn., page 817.) 
  • 19. The basic concept of ‘estate’ is that the person holding the estate should be the proprietor of the soil and should be in direct relationship with the State by paying land revenue to it except where it is remitted in whole or in part. See AIR 1962 SC 694. As I have said the pattom Proclamation conferred full proprietary rights on tenants of pandarapattom lands, and they are also in direct relation with the State by paying land revenue. Since there is no definition of the word ‘estate’ in the existing local law relating to land tenure, pandarapattom land is the local equivalent of ‘estate,’ because its attributes conform to the basic concept of the term.”

Note: Another decision (with the same parties), Rev. Fr. Victor Fernandez v. Albert Fernandez, 1971 KLT 216, AIR 1973 Ker 55,  was overruled in Velayudhan Vivekanandan v. Ayyappan Sadasivan, ILR 1975-1 Ker 166; 1975  KerLT 1.

Part IV

If Settlement Register says Government Land, Petitioner to Establish Title

In Vallikunnil Janaki Amma v. Sree Amruthamangalam Kshethram Moorthi, Kozhikode, 2014 (1) KHC 57, Kerala High Court, referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur, AIR 1951 SC 288, observed as under:  

  • “Even though Ext. A2 is only an extract of the Settlement Register/ Adangal extract which may not by itself prove or confer title to a party in whose name the property stood registered, it can be accepted as evidence of title when there is no contra evidence. Admittedly it is adjacent to Amruthamangalam temple. The temple compound and this suit property which is adjacent to the temple are shown to be of Amruthamangalam Devaswom as per revenue record. In these circumstances, the contention that this property did not and does not belong to the temple/Devaswom cannot be sustained at all.” (Referred to in: Kunhimangalam Devaswam v. State of Kerala (2022 KHC OnLine 7354), 6 April, 2022, Anil K.Narendran, J.)

In Sahana Industries v. State of Kerala (2021 KHC OnLine 7110), Kerala High Court (Devan Ramachandran, J.) held (October 11, 2021) as under:

  • “… If the Settlement Register shows this land to be Government land, then certainly, the petitioner is obliged to establish their title over the property through competent documents”.

Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala – 0n Settlement Register

In Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 25830/2010 (2025:KER:5422) 24.01. 2025 (Harisankar V. Menon, J.) it is pointed out as under:

  • “7. …. In the settlement register at Ext. R1(a), there is no dispute that the entire properties under old Survey No. 2211 having an extent in excess of 107 Acres are shown as “puramboke“….
  • 8…. As regards the petitioner in WP(C) No. 25830 of 2010 also, the title is traceable to some documents of the Attingal Sub Registry of the yeas 1959, 1957 and 1061. But, it is categorically found that even in these documents, there is no mention as to the receipt of pattayam with respect to the property in question.
  • 11. On the whole, the dispute in these writ petitions has to be considered with reference to the description of the properties falling under old survey No. 2211 in the settlement register. As already noticed, the settlement register describes the property as “Puramboke”.
  • The petitioners, it is true, have contended that the survey numbers as per Exts.P1 to P4 are not seen described as “Tharisu” in the BTR at Ext.R1(b) and Form No.7 prepared by the Survey Authority at Ext.R1(d). But as already noticed, the prior documents produced by the Senior Government Pleader, along with the memo as noted earlier, strike at the root of the contentions raised by the petitioners. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader with respect to the malpractices committed, cannot be brushed aside.”
  • 13….. However, I notice that WP(C) No.25830 of 2010 the entry with respect to the Settlement Register is to be considered at first, which admittedly is against the petitioner. The case of the State is that some foul play is carried out subsequently at the instance of those interested and therefore, the subsequent entries cannot be acted upon.
  • 14. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader relied on Vallikunnil Janaki Amma and Ors. v. Sree Amruthamangalam Kshethram Moorthi, Kozhikode and Anr. [2014 (1) KHC 57], which laid down the principle with respect to the acceptability/relevance of the Settlement Register. As already noticed, I have found that the Settlement Register describes the property under old Survey No. 2211 as “Puramboke”. To the same effect is the judgment of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 20520 of 2021 dated 11.10.2021. This Court further notices the judgment of the Apex Court in Suraj Bhan and Ors. v. Financial Commissioner and Ors. [(2007) 6 SCC 186] which held that mere entry in the revenue records does not confer title on a person. As already noticed, in view of the entries in the Settlement Register, the requirement of an appropriate assignment cannot be lost sight of.”

Settlement Register – T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair M.N.,  (2013) 3 KLT 132, (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.; A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J), it is observed as under:

  • “18. …. The land register as well as the settlement register will establish the plea of the Board that the property having an extent of 2.26 acres is Temple property. Thus, Section 27 of Act of 1950 is clearly attracted and the property is clearly Devaswom property.”
  • “51. As far as the property herein is concerned, the land register and the settlement register produced herein are relevant. The property having the entire extent of 2.26 acres is described as ”kavu” (holy grove) in the settlement register. In the land register also it is described as ”kshethram irippu sthalam” (property where the temple is situated). No other document or other evidence is there to prove the contrary. Therefore, these documents will definitely show that the item of property will fit in with the requirement of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.”
  • “75. … Apart from that, in the light of Section 27 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and in the light of the settlement register and land register, the property is described as Temple puramboke and not Government puramboke. Further Government lands are covered by the exemption u/s 3(1)(x) of the Land Reforms Act and therefore he cannot claim any fixity of tenure. There is no claim by the Government here to the property.”

Tharisu or Assessed Waste

Tharisu was the waste lands ‘at the disposal of the Govt’ and available for ‘extension of cultivation’. It was distinguished from poramboke. Unauthorized occupation of tharisu was also punishable.

  • In K. P. C. Properties represented by its Managing Partner Jerald Jacob v. State of Kerala, 2014 3 KLT(SN) 31, it is observed as under:
  • “The said land was classified as ‘tharisu’ in Government records and was treated as assignable lands.”

Transposition ‘tharishu’ to ‘puthual-registry’:

  • Detailed procedure was prescribed for transposing ‘tharishu’ to ‘puthual-registry’ in the Revenue Manuel, Under the Puthuvel Rules (1097 ME : 1922).

(Puduval) Assignment Under the Puthuvel Rules (1097 ME : 1922)

Puduval Rules were framed under Section 7 of the Government Land Assignment Regulation, III of 1097 (Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala, 24 January, 2025, 2025:KER:5422).

(Also in page 94 of the Report of the Special Officer & Collector, M.G. Rajamanickam IAS, No. GLR – (LR) – 1/2016/BRT/Co. Dated: 04.06.2016).

Puduval lands can be disposed of only in accordance with the aforestated Rules. In other words, insofar as the property is described as Puduval land, the same is required to be assigned as provided under Rule 13 of the Puduval Rules.

It was sale/lease to augment the King’s treasury and also to distribute the lands for cultivation among subjects.

  • Puthuval  lands  were  lands  (i) not assessed  and  registered  in  the  Sirkar  accounts  in  the  name  of  any  individual  and (ii) not  governed  by  Regulation  II  of  1040 (1865).  The lands, when remained unregistered, were the absolute property of Government.  Title was conferred to individuals by the Grant or assignment by the Government (under Puduval Rules). 
  • Under the Puthuvel Rules (1097 ME : 1922) it had to be done by ‘public auction’ or by ‘assignment otherwise than by auction’.

Rule 13 speaks about “Assignment  of  Unoccupied  Lands“. It reads as under:

  • “13.  (i)  All  unoccupied  lands  available  for  registry  shall,  subject  to the  provisions  of  Rules  24  to  28,  35  and  46  (i)  and  (ii)  and unless  otherwise  directed  by  Government,  be  sold  by  public auction  together  with  the  reserved  trees  standing  thereon, at  an  upset  price  to  be  fixed  in  each  case  by  the  Officer  conducting  the  auction.  The  upset  price  shall  he  equivalent  to the  estimated  value  of  the  reserved  trees  standing  on  the lands  plus  the  estimated  Tharavila  according  to  the  importance  of  the  land,  fixed  under  Rule  5  or  9  as  the  case  may be,  and  the  cost  of  demarcation  and  survey.”

Rule 16 reads as under:

  • “16.  On  the  day  fixed  for  the  sale  of  the  land,  the  land  shall,  as  proclaimed,  be  put  up  to  auction,  block  by  block,  if  it  consists  of  more  than  one block,  and  sold  to  the  highest  bidder  above  the  upset  price.  Provided  however  that  no  single  person  should  be  allowed,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  bid for  more  than  50  acres  of  the  land  advertised  for  sale.  The  sale  shall  be conducted  subject  to  the  following  general  conditions:-
  • (i)  The  highest  bidder  above  the  upset  price  shall  be  declared  to be  the  purchaser  of  the  land,  and  if  any  dispute  arises  between  two  or  more  bidders  at  the  same  price,  the  land  shall be  immediately  put  up  to  auction  again  at  the  last  preceding  undisputed  bid  and  sold…….”

In the Puthuval Rules there was provision for sale of lands below 5 acres, above 5 acres and also ‘Concessional Registry of Lands’ for the assignment to the members of the depressed classes or to indigent families belonging to other communities, on application made to the Tahsildar of the Taluk. 

Sub rule (iii) dealt with sale of area below 5 acres it reads as under:

  • “(iii)  If  the  entire  area  of  the  block  is  5  acres  or  less,  the  Tahsildar  need  not  make  a  requisition  to  the  Officer  referred  to above  but  shall  get  the  land  sub-divided,  if  necessary,  and demarcated  and  surveyed  by  the  Provertikar  and  a  sketch, drawn  to  scale,  prepared  by  him.  This  sketch  should  be cheeked  on  the  ground  by  the  Tahsildar  or  the  Assistant Tahsildar.”

If the encroachment was one where ‘Registry is desired’, the Rules provided for an application be taken from the occupier and dealt with under Puthuval rules.  If registry was ‘not desired’ or if Puthuval registry was refused, steps could have been taken against the encroachment.

Chitharanjan v. State of Kerala, 24 January, 2025, 0n Puduval lands

In this decision it is held as under:

  • “9. Furthermore, this Court notices that the Government has produced the prior documents as regards the petitioner in W.P(C) No.25830 of 2010 along with a memo dated 13.11.2024. A reference to the said document – partition deed No. 460 of 64 – shows that the property in Survey No.2211 is recorded as “Puduval” land. In this connection, reference requires to be made to the Puduval Rules framed under Section 7 of the Government Land Assignment Regulation, III of 1097. Puduval lands can be disposed of only in accordance with the afore Rules. In other words, insofar as the property is described as Puduval land, the same is required to be assigned as provided under Rule 13 of the Puduval Rules. The prior deeds in support of the case set up by the petitioners do not disclose the existence of any such assignment with respect to the properties in question.
  • 10. As regards the claim of the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 30260 of 2010, this Court notices that the petitioners have attempted to trace the title of the properties in question to the decree of the Principal Sub Court, Attingal which was later purchased by one Neelakanda Pillai as per sale deed No. 2099 of 1940. The learned Government Pleader has produced the afore- sale deed along with a memo dated 29.10.2020. The said documents also show that the property in question is ‘Puduval’ land and therefore, the requirement of an assignment is essential. But as in the connected case, here also the petitioners have no case that the documents relied on by them show that the property was covered by an assignment to support their case.
  • 11. On the whole, the dispute in these writ petitions has to be considered with reference to the description of the properties falling under old survey No. 2211 in the settlement register. As already noticed, the settlement register describes the property as “Puramboke”.
  • The petitioners, it is true, have contended that the survey numbers as per Exts.P1 to P4 are not seen described as “Tharisu” in the BTR at Ext.R1(b) and Form No.7 prepared by the Survey Authority at Ext.R1(d). But as already noticed, the prior documents produced by the Senior Government Pleader, along with the memo as noted earlier, strike at the root of the contentions raised by the petitioners. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned Senior Government Pleader with respect to the malpractices committed, cannot be brushed aside.”

Settlement Register (Adangal) as Mentioned in Kerala VO Manual

Clause 280 in Chapter 25 of the Kerala Village Office Manual (included in Land Revenue Manual  Volume  VI) refers to ‘Settlement Register (Adangal)’. 

Clause 280 says:

  • 1. Settlement Register is a Permanent Register.
  • 2. It is also called “Adangal” or “A Register”.
  • 3. There will be 2 Annexures (or Supplements) to the Settlement Register.
  • 4. The 1st Annexure (or Supplement) Registers kept in the Village Offices contain all matters as to the lands subsequently surveyed (that were not surveyed at the time of Settlement).
  • 5. The 2nd Annexure (or Supplement) Registers kept in the Village Offices contain all changes subsequent to settlement (and also the changes to the land mentioned in the 1st Annexure Registers).
  • 6. The serial number of the entries in the 2nd Annexure Registers shall be noted in the remark column of the Settlement Register.

In Travancore, after 1910, no “Settlement” or “Settlement Register” has been made 2018(2) KLT 369 (HML case, Para 111).

  • ‘Adangal’ is a term originally used in the erstwhile Madras State. It is a Revenue Record based on the survey conducted.

In Cl. 281, Basic Tax Register (BTR) is specifically referred to.  It is described as a “Permanent Register”.

  • Note: Clause 280 in Chapter 25 of the Kerala Village Office Manual referred to the Supplements to the Settlement Register because the Re- Survey is not completed throughout the State. In the Areas where the Re-Survey is conducted and BTR is made, the Supplement Registers have no application.
  • But, even in places where Re-Survey is effected, the 1910 Settlement Register (“A-Register”) is to be maintained (as a ‘permanent register’).

It is also noteworthy that no Settlement is made after 1910.

As a matter of fact, in Village Offices the Registers are maintained with the name “A-Register” containing the particulars in BTR; and “B-Registers”, to incorporate the subsequent changes made in the land (after preparation of the BTR) though they are not specifically directed in Kerala Village Office Manual.  It is exactly corresponds to the “second additional register” stated in Cl. 281 of the Village Office Manual which is directed to be maintained in addition to the 1910 Settlement “A-Register”

  • Note: Settlement A to D Registers are (originally) referred to in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual, Vol. III (1915), in Cl. 712 and 713, respectively.

As regards the authority of “Manuals” it is observed in State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan, ILR 2023-3 Ker 686; 2023-4 KLT 756, as under:

  • “The Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. [2013 (4) KHC 552: 2014-2 SCC 1] in paragraph 79 considered the binding authority of the CBI Crime Manual. It was held that CBI Crime Manual is not a statute, it is only a set of administrative orders issued for internal guidance of the CBI officers and it cannot supersede the provisions of Cr. P.C. It was further held that in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the Cr. P.C itself, the provisions of the CBI Crime Manual cannot be relied upon. A Single Bench of this Court in Santhosh T. A. And Another v. State of Kerala [2017 (5) KHC 107] dealt with the binding authority of the Kerala Excise Manual under the Abkari Act. It was held that the Manual contains only executive instruction and has no force of a statutory provision.”
  • In Jacob v. State of Kerala, 1964 KLT 359, it had been held (Vaidyalingam, J.), as under:
  • “The instructions or directions contained in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual … have not been given by virtue of any rule making power vested in the. Government, either under the provisions of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act or under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act. …. If that is so, the directions contained in the Travancore Land Revenue Manual can only be considered to be in the nature of executive directions and they will have no force whatsoever, especially in view of the fact that S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951 lays down that the sale of immovable property of the defaulter shall be “in the manner provided hereinafter”.

End Notes

Presumption in Evidence Act under S. 114

Besides direct evidence and admission, the contents of a document can also be proved by circumstantial evidence or by invoking presumption. ‘Common course of natural events’, ‘human conduct’, etc. under S. 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be used to prove the existence and genuineness/truth of a document.  Sec. 114 Evd. Act reads as under”

  • “S. 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts– The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.”

Under Sec. 114 the court can  presume existence of truth or correctness (a fact) which ‘it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business’.

Illustration (e) of Sec. 114, Evd. Act

Illustration (e) of Sec. 114, Evd. Act, demonstrates that presumption as to ‘regularity’ can be invoked on Judicial and official acts, in proper cases. 

‘Regularity’ in Illustration (e) is not exactly the presumption as to ‘correctness or truth’. For such presumption, we have to resort the main section, Sec. 114 – that is, ‘common course of natural events’, ‘human conduct’, etc.

General (Sec. 114) Presumptions in Evidence Act

Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act allows the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.

Relevancy, Admissibility and Presumptions on Truth under Sec. 16, 34, 35

Sec. 16, 34, 35, etc. of the Evidence Act speaks only on ‘relevancy’ of documents. It directs towards the ‘admissibility’. The ‘truth or otherwise’ attached to its contents can be ‘presumed’ under Sec. 114.

Documents in the Course of Business – Relevant Fact under Sec. 16 

Sec. 16 of the Indian Evidence Act: Sec. 16 reads as under:

  • 16. Existence of course of business when relevant: When there is a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any course of business, according to which it naturally would have been done, is a.

Illustrations to Sec. 16 make it clear that (a) when a question arises whether a particular letter was dispatched, the facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that particular letter was put in that place, are relevant; and that (b) when a question arises whether a particular letter reached A, the fact that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.

In Puwada Venkateswara Rao v. Chidamana Venkat Ramanaa, AIR 1976 SC 869, the Apex Court found that a letter sent by registered post, with the endorsement “refused” on the cover, could be presumed to have been duly served upon the addressee without examining the postman who had tried to effect service and it was observed that there was presumption under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act that, in the ordinary course of business, it was received by the addressee and actually refused by him.

Illustration (f) of Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act speaks that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. Under this Illustration, it can be presumed the common course of business has been followed in particular cases. A registered postal receipt along with a copy of the letter containing the court notice and bearing correct address raises a presumption that it was duly received by the addressee, in spite of the absence of a return of acknowledgement (Anil Kumar vs. Nanak Chandra: AIR 1990 SC 1215). but, the addressee can rebut it (Radha Kishan vs. State: AIR 1963 SC 822).

Sec. 32: ‘Presumption Of Truth’ on Documents Falls Relevant Under Sec. 32

Sec. 32 Evidence Act reads as under:

  • “32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant. –– Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:  
  • (1) When it relates to cause of death …. …..
  • (2) Or is made in course of business. –– When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty; or of an acknowledgement written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him
  • (3) …..”

Presumption on Truth on Documents Prepared under Sec. 35

Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

  • “35. Relevancy of entry in public record or an electronic record made in performance of duty: An entry in any public or other official book, register or record or an electronic record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or record or an electronic record is kept, is itself a relevant fact.

In Inder Singh v. S. Raghbir Singh, AIR 1978 P&H 98, it is observed as under:

  • “The principle is that an official record, kept by a person, upon whom there is a public duty to make entries in it only after satisfying himself of the truth of those entries, is presumed to be correct. Such a document itself is evidence of the truth of its contents unless and until its falsity can be demonstrated by any of the various methods by which the evidentiary value of any public book, register or document may be attacked.”

Our Apex Court, in Partap Singh v. Shiv Ram: AIR 2020 SC 1382, referring relevant provisions of Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Sec. 35 of the Evidence Act, held that Record-of-rights (Revenue document) carries the ‘presumption of correctness‘.

In Shiv Ram v. Shiv Charan Singh, AIR 1964 Raj 126, it is observed as under

  • “Where Sec. 35 properly comes into play, an entry made by a public servant in any public or official book in the discharge of his official duty becomes relevant by itself, and no other proof of such entry is required as a matter of law by our Evidence Act, but this, does not exclude the possibility that such an entry may become admissible otherwise if it is properly proved to have been made by a person ordinarily competent to make it.” (Quoted in Mayadhar Nayak vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur, AIR 1982 Ori 221).

Wajibul-Arz – Part of Settlement Record Presumption of Correctness Attached

The Privy Council has held in Fatea Chand v. Knshan, 10 ALJ 335, that wajibul-arz is a cogent evidence of rights as they existed when it was made.

The value of wazibul-aiz has been accepted to be very high in Anant Prasad v. Raja Ram, 1984 Supp AWC 194 and Yash Pat Singh v. Jagannath, 1946 ALJ 132.

In Avadh Kishore Das v. Ram Gopal, AIR 1979 SC 861, (1979) 4 SCC 790, it is observed as under:

  • “Wajibularz is village administration paper prepared with due care and after due enquiry by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties. It is a part of the settlement record and a statutory presumption of correctness attaches to it. Properly construed, this Wajibularz shows that the entire revenue estate of village Bahawalpura vests in the Temple or the Math as a juristic person.”

In Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. , AIR 1981 SC 361; 1981-1 SCC 560, it was held as under:

  • “A certified copy of the relevant entry in the birth register which shows that Saroj Kumari, who according to her evidence was known as Ramesh during her childhood, was born to Lajwanti wife of Daulot Ram on 11-11-1957. Mr, Hardy submitted that in the absence of the examination of the officer/chowkidar concerned who recorded the entry, it was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author.”

In Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U. P. , AIR 2006 SC 2157; 2006 5 SCC 584,  it was observed that there was nothing on record to show that the said date of birth was recorded in a register maintained by the school in terms of the requirements of law as contained in Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, and thereafter it was held as under:

  • “22. Section 35 of the Evidence Act would be attracted both in civil and criminal proceedings. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding. Unless specifically provided for, in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act, the register maintained in ordinary course of business by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which, inter alia, such register is kept would be a relevant fact. Section 35, thus, requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a document is held to be admissible thereunder :
  • (i) it should be in the nature of the entry in any public or official register;
  • (ii) it must state a fact in issue or relevant fact;
  • (iii) entry must be made either by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country; and
  • (iv) all persons concerned indisputably must have an access thereto.”

Revenue record Presumption of Truth Attached

It is held in Krishnamurthy S.  Setlur v.  O.V.  Narasimha Setty, 2019-9 SCC 488, that revenue record proves possession. It is said as under:

  • “14. In our considered view, the High Court has not given any cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that KS was not in possession of the property. His name figured in the revenue record from 1963 to 1981 as the owner in possession. Presumption of truth is attached to revenue record which has not been rebutted.”

Referring relevant provisions of Himachal Land Revenue Act, 1954 and Sec. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is held in Partap Singh v. Shiv Ram: AIR 2020 SC 1382, that Record-of-rights (Revenue document) carries the ‘presumption of correctness‘.

Read Connected Blogs:

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

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Arbitration

Will

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

2 Comments

  1. HARISH LAL's avatar HARISH LAL says:
    December 19, 2024 at 4:42 am

    SIR PLEASE START A YOUTUBE CHANNEL

    Like

    Reply
    1. sajikoduvath's avatar sajikoduvath says:
      December 19, 2024 at 7:45 am

      Ok; we can think about it.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to sajikoduvath Cancel reply