STATE Vs. NARAYANAN VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State, on behalf of the Sreepadom Palace, has filed this appeal. The State was the first defendant in the court below. The plaintiff and the second defendant are brothers. The suit was for a declaration of the plaintiffs title to the plaint properties and to set aside the kuthakapattom lease of the plaint properties, granted by the Sreepadom to the second defendant. The plaintiff and the second defendant are members of a Hindu family. The second defendant is the seniormost male member. The plaintiff stated that the plaint properties were purchased by his grandfather in 1055 under Ext. 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. The second defendant remained ex parte. The State, the first defendant in the case, on behalf of the Sreepadom contended that the plaintiff or the 2nd defendant 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 the second defendant 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 Kuthakapttom lease, that the full proprietary right still vested in the Sreepadom and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

(2.) 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 the second defendant 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 High 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 the second defendant 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs 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 the second defendant was, therefore, set aside. The appeal is against this decree. The plaintiff had filed objections to the findings against him. Though it was filed out of time, the delay was excused, on the plaintiffs 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.

(3.) In paragraph 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 the second defendant in Thulam 1116. In paragraph 4 he had stated that the Sreepadom had no right over these properties and that the second defendant 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 Ext. D for these properties was given to the plaintiffs 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 14.7.1083 by the Settlement Dewan Peishkar. Ext. III is copy of that order. The lower court would think that this order, Ext. III, was passed without notice to the person to whom Ext. 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 paragraph 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. Ext. I is copy of the Ozuku of 1012 for Lekkom 142. It was then a garden land and portions of the same was converted into paddy lands subsequently. This Lekkom 142 was said to belong to Muttakkattu Sreepandara Kariam Cheyvarkal Muthalper. This Muttakkattu Sreepandara Kariam Chevyarkal was admittedly the Sreepadom. The plaintiffs argument was that these properties belonged to the Sreepadom and others, so that the ownership vested in some other institution also. There was no attempt made by the plaintiff to show who the other 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 Ext. III as well as from the admission made in paragraph 3 of the plaint. Ext. II is the Ozhuku for Lekkom 306, that is plaint item No. 4. The tenure was even then described as "]­mchI ]m«w" 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 page 67 of Volume 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 are of 21 3/4 squire miles form 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 page 93 mentioned as follows:- during the 5th centuary M.E., and in the reign of king Adithya Vurmah, the Travancore royal family was under the necessity of adopting two families 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 Thampuran, i.e., senior and junior Ranees of Attingal. The country around Attingal was assigned to them and the revenue derived therefrom 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 Rannees 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 paragraphs 55 to 58 in page 15 of the Land Revenue Manual, Volume 3, 1915 Edition, as follows:-