State vs Narayanan Velayudhan and Another

Govinda Pillai, J.—The State on behalf of the Sreepadom Palace, has filed this appeal. The State was Defendant 1 in the Court below. The Plaintiff and Defendant 2 are brOrs. . The suit was for a declaration of the Plaintiff''s title to the plaint properties and to set aside the ''kuthakapattom'' lease of the plaint properties, granted by the Sreepadom to Defendant 2. The Plaintiff and Defendant 2 are members of a Hindu family. Defendant 2 is the senior most male member. The Plaintiff stated that the plaint properties were purchased by his grandfather in 1055 under Ex. A, and that the sreepadom had no right in these properties except for realising the tax assigned to the Sreepadom by a wrong direction in the settlement with which the Plaintiff was not concerned. Defendant 2 remained ex parte.

The State, Defendant 1 in the case, on behalf of the Sreepadom, contended that the Plaintiff or Defendant 2 had no title to the same, that the properties belonged to the Sreepadom, that the tenure of the properties was properly described in the Settlement Register, that the same could not be disturbed, that Defendant 2 was in possession of the plaint scheduled properties, as the manager of his family and as a tenant of the Sreepadom, that he was therefore fully competent to surrender possession and take a fresh lease on a higher rent on behalf of his family, that the Plaintiff was not competent to question the same, that there was no fraud or misrepresentation in connection with the ''kuthakapattom'' lease, that the full proprietary right still vested in the Sreepadom and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

The plaint schedule consists of four items of properties, survey Nos. 9069 : 26 cents, 9070 : 16 cents, 9071 : 52 cents and 9065 (h) : 4 cents, of Neendakara B Pakuthy in Agastheeswaram Taluk. The State had conceded in the Court below that item No. 4 did not belong to the Sreepadom and that the inclusions of the same in the ''kuthakapattom'' lease might be cancelled. The Court below held so. As regards the first three items, the lower Court found that they were ''thanathu'' properties of the Sreepadom, that Defendant 2 was in possession of those properties under the Sreepadom as manager of his family, that it was not competent for the Sreepadom authorities to enhance the rent without a particular Command or a general Proclamation of His Highness the Maharaja to whom the Sreepadom lands belonged, that the plaint items 1 to 3 had never been let out on ''kuthakapattom'' though the Sovereign had the full power to enhance the pattom or to assume the lands, that in the absence of a Command or Proclamation from the sovereign the rent could not be enhanced, that in this view the ''Kuthakapattom'' taken by Defendant 2 was invalid, that the Plaintiff therefore as a member of his family was entitled to question the same, that there was nothing in the evidence to show that the Plaintiff''s family was holding these properties adversely to the Sreepadom and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The Court below, therefore, declared the full ownership of the Plaintiff''s family to plaint item No. 4 and set aside the ''kuthakapattom'' arrangement regarding that property. A declaration was also given that, though the plaint items 1 to 3 were Sreepadom ''thanathu'' lands,'' the Plaintiff''s family had been in possession of the same not under any ''kuthakapattom'' arrangement but as a tenant in enjoyment on payment of the pattom fixed at the settlement. The ''kuthakapattom'' taken by Defendant 2 was, there fore, set aside. The appeal is against this decree. The Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings against him. Though it was filed out of time, the delay was excused, on the Plaintiff''s application, in this Court. The Court below had directed the parties to suffer their costs and objection to the same was taken by the Plaintiff in the cross appeal memorandum.

In para 3 of the plaint, it had been stated that all the plaint properties were shown in the settlement register as, belonging to the Sreepadom, that this was done by a mistake, that on this basis the Sreepadom was realising the whole ''karom'' charged on the properties, that though this ''karom'' was tendered the Sreepadom employees refused to accept the same, that the right to enjoy the properties was put to auction and that a ''kuthakapattom udampady'' for these properties was taken from Defendant 2 in Thulam 1116. In para 4 he had stated that the Sreepadom had no right over these properties and that Defendant 2 had been induced to execute the ''udampady'' without knowing the full significance, of the same. It was seen that, at the time of the settlement, patta Ex. D for these properties was given to the Plaintiff''s grandfather on 4-11-1088. This was on the assumption that all the properties belonged exclusively to the State. This was wrong and on the representation of the Sreepadom it was set aside on 14-7-1033 by the Settlement Dewan Peishkar. Exhibit III is copy of that order. The lower Court would think that this order Ex. III, was passed without notice to the person to whom Ex. D patta had been issued. The allegations in the plaint would show that the pattadar had notice of the cancellation of the patta, for in para 3 of the plaint, the Plaintiff stated that all the properties were, by mistake, shown in the settlement register as belonging to the Sreepadom. The pattadar had at no time taken any step to get this entry in the patta corrected. Items 1 to 3 are in ''Lekkom'' 142 and item No. 4 is in ''Lekkom'' 306. Exhibit I is copy of the Ozhuku of 1012 for ''Lekkom'' 142. It was then a garden land and portions of the same were converted into paddy lands subsequently. This ''Lekkom'' 142 was said to belong to Muttakkattu Sreepandara kariam Cheyvarkal Muthalper''. This Muttakkattu sreepandara Kariam Chevarkal was admittedly the Sreepadom. The Plaintiff''s argument was that these properties belonged to the Sreepadom and Ors., so that the ownership vested in some other institution also. There was no attempt made by the Plaintiff to show who the Ors. were.

On the other hand, at the time of the settlement, it had been accepted by the State that all these properties belonged to the Sreepadom. That could be seen from Ex. III as well as from the admission made in para. 3 of the plaint. Exhibit II is the ''Ozhuku'' for ''Lekkom'' 306, that is plaint item No. 4. The tenure was even then described as "(Pandaravaka pattom)" so that the Sreepadom could not have any right over the same, except probably to receive the tax fixed at the time of the settlement and shown there as belonging to the Sreepadom. There was some misapprehension in the mind of the lower Court in its appreciation of the position of Sreepadom with reference to properties owned by it. At p. 67 of Vol. 4 of Travancore Land Revenue Manual, edited in 1916, the origin of Sreepadom Edavaka is mentioned thus:

The villages of Attingal and Edakode in the Chirayinkil Taluk comprising an area of (Sic) square miles from the hereditary domain of the Ranies of Travancore. The Ranies held sway over the tract ever since the formation of the town of Attingal in 1255 A.D. It was from Umayamma Rani that the English obtained Anchengo in 1684. In 1737 the then Rani resigned her sovereignty in favour of the Travancore Maharaja. Since then the two villages are enjoyed by the Ranies (who reside at the Sreepadom Palace in Trivandrum) as their private domain.

Mr. Sankunny Menon, in his History of Travancore, at p. 93 mentioned as follows:

During the 5th century M.E., and in the reign of King Adithya Vurmah, the Travancore royal family was under the necessity of adopting two females from the Kolathnaud royal family, and a royal residence was constructed at Attingal, for the residence of the two Ranees, and they were installed as Attingal Mootha Thampuran and Elia Thumpuran, i.e. senior and junior Ranees of Attingal. The country around Attingal was assigned to them and the revenue derived there from was placed at their disposal.

It is further mentioned in the said volume of the Land Revenue Manual that the statement contained in the concluding portion of the above extract was incorrect as the Ranees exercised sovereign authority over the tract till 912 M.E., when they resigned their sovereignty in favour of the Travancore Maharaja. The legal import of lands belonging to the Sreepadom are given in paras 55 to 58 in page 15 of the Land Revenue Manual, Vol. 3, 1915 Edn. as follows:

The lands under this head form the private property, of the Raness and consists of lands situate outside the ''Sreepandaravaga'' freehold villages (Edavaga) in the Chirayinkil Taluk. (Vide p. 4.)

These lands lie dispersed among lands of other tenures in the taluk of Thovala, Eraniel, Kalkulam, Vilavancode, Neyyattinkara, Trivandrum, Nedumanga and Chirayinkil.

The Sirkar is entitled only to ''rajabhogam'' on the lands held under favourable tenures, while the ''pattom'' and ''thanathu'' lands of this class generally pay nothing to Government.

Separate pattahs have been issued at the settlement showing the payments respectively due to the Sirkar and Sreepadom on individual properties.

The further elaboration of the same at p. 17 of part I of the Revised Edition of Land Revenue Manual, Vol. 3, would therefore lend to some misconceptions as to the tenure of Sreepadom lands. Anyhow, it is stated there that the Sirkar is entitled to only ''Rajabhogam'' on Sreepadom lands while the pattom and ''thanathu'' lands of this class had been paying nothing to Government. The ''thanathu'' lands of the Sreepadom are enjoyed by that institution by leasing out the properties. The Plaintiff in this case had not shown what the tenure of these properties was. The lower Court was therefore correct in drawing the inference that items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule were the ''thanathu'' lands of the Sreepadom. The Plaintiff admitted that his family was paying the dues of the Sreepadom, so that it was always acknowledging the sovereign right of His Highness. The Maharaja over the Sreepadom lands. He could not now therefore be heard to say that the Sreepadom had no right over these properties. His elder brother, who was the manager of the family, had therefore been correct in taking out items 1 to 3 on ''Kuthakapattom'' and his discretion in the matter could not be questioned, unless his act was highly injurious and prejudicial to the family. As the lands were classified as ''thanathu'', the Sreepadom would have the right to resume the same at any time and lease them out to Ors., if that institution had a subsisting interest over the properties. The subsisting interest is conceded by the Plaintiff and, so there is nothing prejudicial in the manager of the family accepting the lease acknowledging the supreme rights of the Sreepadom.

The lower Court was of the view that there must be a Command or Proclamation by the Sovereign allowing enhancement of pattom. That was not necessary. The management of Sreepadom lands was left with the officers appointed for that purpose. Those officers are also allowed to take steps to realise the revenue due to the Sreepadom by resorting to the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1 to 1068. Their act in the present case was only in the interest of the Sreepadom and so there was no necessity for His Highness the Maharaja to issue a proclamation to revise the terms under which the ''thanathu'' lands were held by the tenants. Thus, the view expressed by the learned Judge is wrong. On the findings recorded by the learned Judge as to 4the tenure of the lands and the relationship the Plaintiff''s suit had only to be dismissed, as regards items 1 to 3. The decree of the lower Court as regards item No. 4 is correct and is, hence, confirmed. The ''kuthakapattom'' arrangement of 1116 as regards items 1 to 3 has to be upheld. It is strange that the Plaintiff has not even produced a copy of the ''kuthakapattom'' deed of 1116. We do not, therefore, know the terms mentioned there. It was admitted before us that for items 1 to 3 the Plaintiff''s family was paying a pattom of 20 chakramas till it got the terms revised in 1116. The tax for item No. 4 was 10 cash. It can, therefore, be directed that 10/330 of the rent fixed in the kuthakapattom deed of 1116 has to be reduced and the balance fixed as the rent due on account of plaint items 1 to 3.

In the result, therefore, we set aside the decree of the lower Court as regards plaint items 1 to 3. The ''kuthakapattom'' arrangement entered into by Defendant 2 with the Sreepadom authorities is confirmed, except in regard to item No. 4. The rent mentioned in that ''kuthakapattom'' deed will only be reduced by 10/330 of the amount mentioned therein. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. Since Defendant 1 has substantially succeeded in the appeal, the Plaintiff is directed to pay the costs of that Defendant in both the Courts. The cross appeal will, therefore, stand dismissed with costs.