Vanjipuzha Chief v. Thomma — 1954 DIGILAW 68 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. These are appeals presented by the first defendant and the only question that arises and which is common in both the appeals is whether Travancore Act V of 1071 amended by Act XII of 1108 applies to the plaintiff's land as held by the court below. Act V of 1071, the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Act, was preceded by Proclamation dated 25.12.1042. S.3 of that Act enacted that: "The following expressions shall have the meanings hereby assigned to them unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context: (1) "Jenmom land" means land (other than Pandaravagai, Sreepandaravagay, Kandukrishi or Sirkar Devaswom land, recognised as such in the Sirkar 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 payment of renewal fees". The first Explanation to that Section is as follows: "Rajabhogam includes Rajabhogam paid to a Chief within whose free-hold estate the land is situate." The contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs in the court below which was accepted by that court is that the land held by the plaintiffs come within the ambit of the definition of jenmom land in the said S. 3. The contention urged on behalf of the appellant before us which was also urged in the court below is that the jenmom land within the meaning of S. 3 does not apply to the freehold lands of Edavakai Chieftains. There are four Edavakais called, Edappally, Kilimanoor, Vanjipuzha and Poonjar. With regard to the first two, Act IV of 1068 was enacted to regulate the relations between the Edavakai Chieftains and their tenants. S. 9 of that Act is as follows: "Nothing in this Regulation shall be construed to apply to lands held by the Edappally Chief in his capacity of a Jenmi under the Royal Proclamation of 1042". It shows that the jenmom lands to which the Proclamation of 1042 applied were not those to which or in respect of which Act IV of 1068 was enacted. Within the freehold estate of an Edavakai Chieftain there are lands held in jenmom either by the Chieftain himself or by other persons. It shows that the jenmom lands to which the Proclamation of 1042 applied were not those to which or in respect of which Act IV of 1068 was enacted. Within the freehold estate of an Edavakai Chieftain there are lands held in jenmom either by the Chieftain himself or by other persons. To these jenmom lands Act V of 1071 will apply but not to the free-hold lands themselves. Act III of 1109 was enacted to regulate the relations between all the four Edavakai Chieftains and their tenants. Act IV of 1068 was, therefore, repealed. S.14 of Act III of 1109 which provides that: "Nothing in this Regulation shall be deemed to apply (a) to any land in so far as the provisions of the Travancore Jenmi and Kudiyan Regulation of 1071 (Regulation V of 1071 as amended by Regulation XII of 1108) apply thereto except to the extent provided for in the Explanation to S. 11, or (b) to the settlement of lands belonging to Sirkar Devaswom or to Pandaravagai lands, if any, within an Edavagai." reinforces the position that the jenmom lands contemplated in Act V of 1071 would not comprise the freehold lands of the Edavagai Chieftains. Looking at the matter from the historical background it is clear that a distinction existed and was throughout recognised and maintained between the jenmom lands and free-hold lands of the four Edavagai Chieftains though in respect of both freedom from payment of land revenue was a common feature. When the survey and settlement was completed in or about the year 1082 no Edavagai land had been surveyed or settled. That was done only pursuant to Act III of 1109. That Act by S.17 provides as follows: "No Civil Court shall take into consideration or decide any question as to the rate or amount of pattom assessed or assessable on any land under the provisions of this Regulation or as to the amount of pattom fixed or hereafter fixed on portions of land. (2) But nothing contained in this Regulation shall be deemed to prevent parties aggrieved by any proceedings under this Regulation except to the extent provided for in sub-s. (1) from seeking redress in the Civil Courts". (2) But nothing contained in this Regulation shall be deemed to prevent parties aggrieved by any proceedings under this Regulation except to the extent provided for in sub-s. (1) from seeking redress in the Civil Courts". A suit claiming permanency by a tenant whose lands were surveyed under the provisions of the Act of 1109 is competent and the permanency claimed is not on account of any contract with the Edavagai Chieftain but only on account of the plea that the plaintiffs got permanency under Act V of 1071. We are clear that the scope of the operation of Act V of 1071 and that of Act III of 1109 are entirely different and that the freehold lands of the Edavagai Chieftains are governed by Act III of 1109 and not by Act V of 1071 amended by Act XII of 1108. This question arose for consideration of the Travancore High Court as also of this Court in various cases and the view taken has been uniform and it is in accordance with the view above indicated. Reference may be made to 1945 TLR 728,1947 TLR 407,1953 KLT 439. There are several unreported decisions of Division Benches and of Single Judges in the Travancore High Court as also in this Court. Reference may be made to S.A. 366 of 1121, S.A. 575 of 1121, A.S. 450 of 1124, A.S. 487 of 1124, S.A. 362 of 1124, S.A. 544 of 1124, S.A. 63 of 1124, S.A. 335 of 1125, S.A.11 of 1125 and S.A.11 of 1950. 2. The result is that both the appeals should be allowed with costs here and below. Allowed.