Thomas Abraham vs Sankaranarayanan Nair and Others

The Plaintiff''s heir is the Appellant. The suit was instituted for setting, aside Settlement decision under the Edavaga Act and for an injunction restraining the Vanjipuzha Chief from collecting the dues as per the Settlement decision. The plaint schedule properties consisted of four items of properties. The Plaintiff''s case was that he was holding these properties'' under an irredeemable tenure so that the settlement should have been on that basis and the dues to the ''Jenmi'' should have been determined with reference to the nature of the tenure under which the properties were held.

The Defendant resisted the suit and contended that the decision was perfectly right and that it was not liable to be modified. The suit was once decreed as prayed for by the Plaintiff. The matter came up in appeal before the High Court in A.S. 276 of 1121 when the decision as regards items 3 and 4 was upheld. As regards items 1 and 2, the decree was reversed, for, the same was opposed to the decision in - ''Varkey Joseph v. Godavarma Valia Raja 1945 Trav LR 728 (A) and - 1945 Trav LR 581'' (B). After remand, the lower Court held that plaint items 1 and 2 were with the Plaintiff under an irredeemable tenure so that the settlement decision was correct. The suit was, therefore, dismissed as far as items 1 and 2 were concerned. The appeal relates to these two items.

The tenure of the properties was entered as ''Thanathu'' land in the documents, Exs. A and B, under which the Plaintiff was holding the properties. ''Thanathu'' lands had been defined in Section 2(x) as lands within an ''Edavaga'' not being Pandaravaga'' land or land belonging to the ''Sirkar Devaswom'', ''Jenmom'' lands, registered holding or ''Foramboke''. ''Jenmom'' is defined in Sub-clause 9 of the same section. The properties in dispute do not come under the category of ''Jenmom'' land as defined there. The provisions of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act would not apply to the lands governed by the Edavaga Act and that question had been considered at length in - ''Mundakayam Valley Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Godavarma Valia Raja 1945 Trav LR 531 (C)- 1945 Trav LR 728'' (A) and - ''Uzhithararu Uzhithiraru v. Kurien Ouseph 1947 Trav LR 407 (D). ''Edavakas'' are'' free-hold estates paying no revenue to the State. They were petty Kingdoms or principalities which remained independent or quasi-independent until the conquest and consolidation of the State in the 18th Century. The chiefs of ''Edavagas'' exercised sovereign powers at one time and it was in the exercise of such right that they claimed to be entitled to ''Melvara Rajabhogam'' from the lands within the ''Edavaga''.

This principle had in substance been accepted in the Edavaga Act 3 of 1109. This Act would not apply to the ''Jenmom'' lands belonging to the Brahmins, and ''Sirkar Devaswoms''. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into a minute examination of the question whether the land in question is governed by the second clause of Section 5 of the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act. The land in question being of ''Thanathu'' tenure, the incidents of a ''Kanapattom'' as defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act would not govern Ex. B under which these two items are held by the Plaintiff. Though Ex. B is styled as a ''Kanapattom'' deed, the incidents of irredeemability would not govern that document, as the Defendant was not a proclamation ''Jenmi'' or the lands held by him were not the ''Jenmom'' lands as defined in the Jenmi and Kudiyan Act.

We are, therefore, to go by the provision in the document itself. Only if the terms in the document indicated that the Defendant was allowed to hold the properties in perpetuity or there were expressions in the document to indicate the same, could the land be considered to be held by the Defendant under an irredeemable tenure. There is no such indication in the document in question and so the decree passed by the lower Court appears to be correct. We confirm the same and dismiss the appeal with costs.