Persons who are entitled to grant varom.

The question arising for decision in this appeal is whether a Varomdar has possession of the nilam entrusted to him for cultivation and if so what exactly is the scope and extent of such possession. The case of the appellant is that the accused 14 in number, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly entered the property (paddy land 6 and odd acres in extent, at Engandiyoor which the complainant was cultivating under varom arrangement) with the common object of reducing the property to their possession by force, by scaring away the complainant and his men by criminal intimidation and threats, and also to commit mischief by forming mud heaps in the property. The complainant on seeing the danger before him, reported immediately to the Valapad Police Station. Accused 1 and 2 are the jenmis or owners of the property and the case of the complainant is that they had permitted him to cultivate the nilam with paddy on pankuvarom and he has been doing the cultivation from 1131. On 17th April, 1964, petitions were moved by him before the Land Tribunal, Chowghat for fixation of fair rent; Exhibits P-2 and P-3 are the certified copies of the petitions. The filing of the petitions before the Land Tribunal was not relished by accused 1 and 2 and accordingly they collected their men accused 3 to 14, and on 22nd May, 1964, at about 6 a.m. entered the property as stated above. The complaint was investigated by the Police and it was finally referred as false. The refer notice is Exhibit P-1. P.W. 1 the complainant, thereupon moved the Magistrate for appropriate reliefs and his complaint was taken on file as C.C. No. 897 of 1964. The learned Sub-Magistrate of Chowghat found accused 1 and 2 guilty under sections 143, 447 and 426 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, under each count; accused 3 to 5 were convicted under sections 143, 447 and 426 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, under each count: accused 6 to 14 were convicted under sections 143 and 447 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, under each count. Learned District Magistrate of Trichur in appeal has quashed the conviction and sentence and acquitted the accused. He has held that a varomdar has no possession of the land which he cultivates and he cannot, therefore, sustain an action in trespass against the landlord. Learned Counsel who appeared for the appellant did not press for the confirmation of the sentence under sections 143 and 426. He confined himself only to the offence under section 447, Indian Penal Code.

The question, therefore, that arises for consideration, as already indicated, is whether the varomdar has possession of the land entrusted to him for paddy cultivation and whether such possession would clothe him with the right to keep away from the property, everybody else including the jenmi. For a proper and full consideration of the question, we have necessarily to turn back and examine the various enactments at least from Act I of 1957 which have a direct bearing on the question. The legal position before Act I of 1957 was that a ‘pankupattomdar’ had no possession of the land and he was entitled only to a share of the crop as set forth in the agreement between him and the landlord, or according to the custom that prevailed in regard to such mode of cultivation. In Act I of 1957, ‘Varomdar’ is defined as:

"a person who under the system known as varom, pathivarom, pankuvarom or pankupattom or by any other name, has agreed, whether in writing or not, With the owner or other person in lawful possession of any land to cultivate the land and share with him the produce of the land."

In interpreting the scope and limits of the possessory powers enjoyed by the varomdar by virtue of the above provision in the enactment, a Single Bench of this Court held in Balan v. State of Kerala1, that the owner is in lawful possession of the land and that the only right which the ‘varomdar’ gets under the agreeme