SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1966 Supreme(SC) 80

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., J.C.Shah, K.N.Wanchoo, M.Hidayatullah, S.M.Sikri, JJ.
Cochin Devaswom Board: Cochin Devaswom Board: Cochin Devaswom Board: Cochin Devasworn Board, Trichur: Cochin Devasworn Board, Trichur: Cochin Devasworn Board, Trichur
Versus
Vamana Setti: Pulakode Kizhake Madom: Eralil Mathai Paul: Thottakkat Bhammathi Amma: Kallianikutty Amma: State Of Kerala
Case No. : 11 of 1964
Date of Decision : 3/2/66
Advocates Appeared: Dadachanji J.B. : De Niren : Dutta B. : Krishnamurthy P.K. : Mathur O.C. : Nambiyar M.K. : Narain Ravindra : Pillai M.R.Krishna : Pudissery A.G.

Important Points

Lands held under official leases and undertakings are 'holdings' under tenancy law. Regional application of such laws is constitutional under Article 14 if the tenure systems in different regions are substantially different, creating an intelligible differentia.

Subject

Civil Law - Land Law

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
TRAVANCORE COCHIN KANAM TENANCY ACT: S.2, S.1

Headnote

(A) Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 2 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 31(2) - Application of tenancy laws to lands held from religious institutions - Whether lands held under statutory rules and undertakings constitute 'holdings' under the Act - Whether regional application of the Act violates the right to equality. (Paras 11-15)

(B) Tenancy Law - Definition of 'holding' and 'kanam tenant' - Where a tenant receives a lease (Pattah) and executes an undertaking (kychit), such arrangement constitutes a contract of tenancy, regardless of whether the rent is fixed by statutory rules - Such lands are governed by the tenancy act. (Para 13)

(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality before law - Legislation limited to a specific region is not discriminatory if the tenure systems in different regions are substantially different - Such difference constitutes an intelligible differentia - Burden of proof lies on the party alleging discrimination to show similarity of status. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
A religious institution board claimed the right to recover rents based on a proclamation and rules from 1910. Tenants asserted proprietary rights under a 1955 tenancy act. The board contended that the act did not apply to its lands because the relationship was governed by statutory rules rather than contracts and that the act's application to only one region of the state was discriminatory.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the lease and undertaking system created a contractual relationship, bringing the lands under the 1955 act. It further held that the act did not violate the right to equality as the tenure systems in the different regions of the state were distinct.

Issues: (1) Whether the tenancy act governs lands held from religious institutions; (2) Whether the act infringes the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and is therefore void.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the official lease and the corresponding undertaking executed by the tenant evidenced a contract, thus satisfying the definitions of 'holding' and 'kanam tenant' under the act. Regarding Article 14, the court found that the different legal histories and customary tenures in the various regions of the state justified the regional application of the act, and the board failed to prove that the landlords across regions were similarly situated.

Result: Appeals are dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

J.C.SHAH, J.

(1) TWO questions fall to be determined in these appeals: (1) Whether the Travancore-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act 24 of 1955 governs lands held from Devaswoms (religious institutions) in the Cochin region of the State of Kerala; and (2)Whether the Act infringes the guarantee of equal protection of the laws and is on that account void?

(2) KANAM tenure has a feudal origin. Broadly stated it is a customary transfer which partakes of the character of a mortgage and of a lease: it cannot be redeemed before a fixed number of years-normally twelve-and the (Kanamdar) mortgagee-lessee is entitled on redemption to compensation for improvements. The annual payments to the (Jenmi) mortgagor-lessor are regulated by what remains of the fixed share of the produce after deducting interest. If the land is not redeemed on the expiry of 12 years, a renewal fee becomes payable to the jenmi. The Cochin State Manual contains the following description of the kanam tenure in the Cochin region: `The Verumpattam (simple lease) becomes a kanam lease when the janmi (landholder) acknowledges liability to pay a lump sum to the tenant on the redemption of his lease. In the old days his liability was created in most cases as a reward to the tenant for military or other services rendered by him, but in more recent times, kanam encumbrances were generally created by the janmi borrowing money from his tenant to meet any extraordinary expenditure by the conversion of the compensation payable to Kuzhikanam (lessee who had a right to make improvements) holders into a kanam debt, or by the treatment of the amount deposited by the tenant for the punctual payment of rent and husband-like cultivation as a charge on the land. In kanam leases the net produce, after deducting the cost of seed and cultivation, is shared equally between the landlord and the tenant, and from the share of the former the tenant is entitled to deduct interest on the kanam amount at five per cent. The overplus, that is payable to the janmi after making these deductions, is known as michavaram. The kanamdar is entitled to the undisturbed enjoyment of the land for twelve years, but formerly it was for the life time of the demisor. At the end of this period, the lease may be terminated by the janmi paying the kanam amount and the value of the improvements effected by the tenant, or it may be renewed on the latter paying a premium or renewal fee to the landlord.` After the expulsion in 1762 of the Zamorin of Calicut who had invaded Cochin, the Ruler of Cochin divested the chieftains who had supported the invader of their administrative powers and confiscated their properties and the Devaswoms under their management. Managers of the major Devaswoms who had welcomed the invader were also deprived of their powers, and administration of a large majority of Devaswoms was assumed by the State. Some minor Devaswoms were later taken over by the State, because of incompetent or dishonest management, and a scheme was devised by the State for maintenance of accounts of the Devaswom properties and for administration of the affairs of the Devaswoms according to the existing usage. The Devaswoms, revenues and expenditure whereof were thus completely merged in the general revenues, were called Incorporated Devaswoms. Some time after the incorporation of these Devaswoms, management of two wellknown endowed temples was surrendered to the Ruler, but administration of these Devaswoms was not amalgamated with the `Incorporated` Devaswoms and their expenditure continued to be met from the receipts from the temples. Later the State assumed management of some more Devaswoms and treated them in the same manner as the two major temples. These institutions which were later acquired were treated as independent of each other as well as of the `Incorporated` Devaswoms and were called `Unincorporated` Devaswoms.

(3) ON 11/02/1910, the Ruler of Cochin issued a Procla- mation publishing rules













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top