COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR versus VAMANA SHETTY AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 02-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

COCHIN DEV ASWOM BOARD, TRICHUR 
v. 
YAMANA SHETTY AND ORS. 
March 2, 1966 
[P. B. GAJ~NDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. 
HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
The Trava11core-Cochin Kanam Tenancy Act (24 o/ 1955)-I/ applies 
to Devaswo1ns. 
Constitution o/ India. 1950, Art. 14-Act applicable only to CocliirJ 
area of the Kera/a State-If Act. ultra vire>. 
In 1910. the Ruler of Cochin issued a Proclamation publishing Ruic. 
·to secure the better administration of Devaswoms. 
Clause 9 of the Pro-
clamation authorised the Diwan of the State to make Rules 10 carry out 
the main object and scheme of the Proclamation. 
In exerci9C of 
the 
authority conferred upon him. tho Diwan publ.shed rules on March 21. 
1910 
regulating 
the procedure in 
the matter of collection Paartam, 
Mlchovaram, rcoewal fee and other dues payable to Devaswoms. 
These 
Rules applied to all tenants-<>nlinary as well as Ka11am. In 1955, the 
Legislature of the Part B State of Travancore C<>chin enacted the Travan-
COl'O-Cocbin Kanam Tenancy Act conferring full proprietary right.I oo 
Kanam 
tenanl\ 
in 
the 
Cochin 
area 
of the State, 
subject 
only 
to 
the 
payment 
of 
Janimikaram 
.., 
a 
result 
of 
which, 
the 
.KanamAenant wao; declared proprietor 
of the land and the right of the 
J.emni was only to receive rhe Janniikaram. 
After the enactment of the 
Act, the Cochin Dcvaswom Board c1aimed to recover n1icliavaram from 
the Kanam tenants at the r.it~ settled under the Rule; made under 
the 
Proclamation of 1910. 
The Kanam·tenant..; petitioned the 
Hi~h C.ourt 
for an appropriate writ qu..,hing the notices of demand issued by the 
Board. and the High Court allowed the petition. and directed the Board 
not to proceed to enforce the notices. 
In appeal to this Court. it waa 
contended that; (i) the Act applied only to land held under a contract 
of tenancv and not to Devaswom lands in respect of which the mi.schavaram 
and rencv•al fee \\·ere governed by Rules framed under the Proclamation 
(ii) the Act v.'a~ discriminatory and void. 
HELD : (i) The Tnl\·ancoro-Cochin Kanom l'enancy Act goverm 
lands held from Deva.nvonzs in the Cochin region of the State Kerala. 
The Scheme of the Rules published by the Diwan under the Procla-
mation was lh3t an offer of Pattah on the terms c:,.pecifie<l in a rough draft 
was to he made to the tenant and after the terms were settled a 
final 
Pattah wao; to h: given :ind the Kanam·tenanl had to execute a K\'cliit 
(undertaking) in favour of the State. 
Thou~h the quantum of ,\firh1Jva. 
,_ and the renewal fee was determined by the Rules under the procla-
mation the terms of the Pattah and Kychir evidenced the contract which 
determined the rights of rhe Kanam tenant and the Devasa·o1n. 
There· 
fore. the definitions of 'holding', 'miclzavara1n'. 'Kana.?1', 
'Renewal 
fee' 
and 'lanmikaratn' in s. 2 of the Act applied !o all lando; held hv K"'nam· 
tenants whether they \vere Dtva.nvom or non.Devasom. 
Further, though 
the Rulec; under the Procl:imation are not c~nre·~lv repe:1led hv tli~ Act. 
the Act mu't be deemed ro have partially super.<eded the Proclamar'on and 
the Rule. in so far as the latter related to the rights and obli~a•ions of 
the Kanam.tenant! in the three religions, the Act is not discriminatory. 
Board. [732 D-D; 733 A-BJ 
A 
I 
II 
c 
D 
G 
• 
II 
•
' 
""--· 
• 
' 
DEVASWOM BOARD v. YAMANA SHETTY (Shah, /.) 
725 
A 
(ii) The Act does not infringe tho guarantee of equal protection of 
the laws in Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
Though the Act only applies to the Cochin area of the State of Kerala 
which consists of the three regions of Travancore, Cochin and Malabar, 
since there is a difference between the relations governing the Jenmies and 
the Kanam-tenants in the three religions, 
the Act is not discriminatory. 
[734 C-E) 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 11-18 of 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
1964. 
Appeals from the judgmeut aud orders dated November 7, 
IS, 1960 of the Kerala High Court in Original Petitions Nos. 269, 
284, 129, 250, 285 and 265 of 1957, and 102 and 269 of 1958 res-
pectively. 
M. K. Nambyar, P. K. Krishnan Kutty Menon, B. Dutta, 
J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
Niren De, Additional Solicitor-General, A. G. 
Pudissery and 
M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondent the State of Kerala (In C. As. 
Nos. 17 and 18 of 1964). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. Two questions fall to be determined in these

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.