CHAPTER II

THE LAND SYSTEM IN MALABAR IN THE

PRE- BRITISH PERIOD
 27

T h e land tenure system of Malabar was more complicated in the

Pre-British period than in Travancore and Cochin. They have been more

feudalistic, with the large number of intermediaries between the original

Janmi and the actual cultivators. Under a7«nm/ there had been generally

one or more Kanakkars with one or more Verumpattam tenants under

him, who in turn cultivate through agricultural labourers or directly by

themselves and their dependants. In between there had been found a

number of sub-tenants who were sub-lessors and who sub-let their holding

to still smaller cultivators. It was usual, especially in North Malabar, to

found three or four intermediaries between the Janmi and the tiller of

the soil, all having different interests in the same piece of land. The

Janmis had been the absolute owners of the land with the absolute

proprietary rights in the soil.

During that time there were large number of tenures in which vast

areas of land held by the land owners were parcelled as a result of the

interaction of several factors such as economic, social, political and religious.'

1. T.K. Raveendran, Institutions and Movements in Kerala History, Trivandrum,1978,
p.131.
 28

William Logan^ argued that an attempt to write even short account

of the land tenures of Malabar without any preliminary reference to the

political organization which gave them birth, would be a sensible plan

to attempt in giving an intelligible account of the law of real property in

England without mentioning the feudal system and accordingly attempted

to trace the history of the land question in Malabar from the earliest time

dawn to the late nineteenth century in terms of its political organization.^

He first showed that the organization of the State in the eighth and ninenth

century was by guilds or corporate bodies, having its distinct function to

perform in the body politic, at the head was the Perumal or the emperor.

Below him came a number of chieftains of the Nadus. Each Nadu being

a territorial organization of the Nairs into six hundred,who were

Kanakkars. A certain class, the Ilavar or Tiyyas were told of to plant up

the waste lands and manage the garden. Another class the Vellalar

(irrigators), were the cultivators of the wet lands."*

2. William Logan was a British Officer, who was appointed Special Commissioner to
enquire into the land tenures and tenants' rights of Malabar in 1881.
3. Government of Madras,Vo\.\i., 1882, Quoted by P. Ka6haknshDSin,Pessant Struggles,
Land Reforms and Social Changes-Malabar, 1836- 1982, New Delhi, 1989, p.25.
4. Ibid., p.26.
 29

The rights in land was hereditary and the holders therefore were

entitled for their service to certain portions of the produce of the lands

within the limits of their birthrights. Logan further argued that in a

society thus organized, like a well-ordered household, there could not

have been ownership of land in the modem sense.^ Stated differently, in

the land system of pre-British Malabar, characterised by what, Logan

also described as ' corporate unity' or 'j oint proprietorship', each of the

principal land right holders, viz, the Janmi, Kanakkaran, and

Verumpattakkaran, was a part-proprietor, who, as a matter of customary

right was entitled to one - third or an equal share of the net produce .

The net produced was the share left over after providing for the

chemjanmakkar or all the other birth right holders such as the village

carpenter and goldsmith and the agricultural labourers who helped to

gather, prepare and store the produce. The distribution of the respective

share was done by the Kanakkaran. In ancient times Perumal might

have also obtained a share of the produce. This is indicated by Logan's

observation that "the share of the produce left over after providing

liberally for the cultivating castes as pattam, that is, the Pad (authorities)

5. WilliamLogan,Ma/a6arA/(3«Ma/, Vol. n, Madras, 1951 edn, p.21.

 30

share and thispattam was divided equally, share and share alike, between

the Janmi and the Kanakkaran who had between them inherited the old

government land revenue of Malabar."^

However customary practices played an important role in the

method of distribution of land in Malabar. This was variously described

in Malayalam language as maryada, margam and acharam^ which

regulated every phase of the individual life in Malabar-the family

conditions and constitution, inheritance and succession and various facets

of agricultural relations especially the system of land holding. From time

immemorial the relations of the landlord and tenants were decided by

kana Janma maryada (rules concerning Kanam and Janmam, the agrarian

law of the country). There were local customs, class practices and family

customs in regards to land tenures,^

The Aryan Brahmins (Nambudiris) after their advent in Malabar

in the early centuries of Christian era began to exert great influence on

6. P. Radhakrishnan, op.cit., p. 27.

7. Elamkulam P.N. Kunjan Pillai, Janmi Sampradayam Keralathil (Mai.), Kottayam,
1960, p. 17.
8. P. Sivasankara Menon, Ma/afearLanrf Tenures, Emakulam, 1939, p.8.
 31

the economic life of the people. They built large number of temples

which became the centres of all activities. Emperors, Rajas, Naduvazhis

and Desavazhis used to build temples and bequeath vast landed estates

for their maintenance.^ When temples increased in number in course of

time, a major portion of the landed property came in the hands of the

assemblies of Brahmins. •"

Concentration of property in the hands of the Brahmins resulted

to donate most of their lands to temples in order to secure spiritual solace

and also to get exemptionfromland taxes. Much of the private property

in Malabar was thus converted into the temple property or Devaswam.

Generally when a gift was made, the deed used to specify the names of

the persons in whom the right to cultivate the land should be vested.

Usually, the "Karaima "'^ or the right to hold these temple property was

held by the grantors themselves.'^

9. Elamkulam P.N. Kunjan Pillai, op.cit., p.24.

10. Ibid.,p. 27.
11. Grant of temple lands on service tenure is called Karaima. B. A. Salatore, Ancient
Karnataka, Poona, 1930, p.79.
12. Ibid., p.29.
 32

Eventhough the Nattukuttam (Direct Assemblies) Urkuttam

(Provincial Assemblies), Naduvazhi's, Koyil Adhikaris (the direct

representatives of the Perumal), exerted control over the Urala samiti. '^

In course of time that control had been relaxed. Several rules and

regulations were being framed to prevent the Urallars^^fromusurping

the rights of the Karalars and from converting the Devaswams into

Brahmaswams. The power and prestige of the Nambudiris increased as

the wealth had flown to them from all quarters. The Nattukuttams and

Urkuttams began to support the Uralars because the influential members

of these assemblies were also the members of the Urala Samities.

At first the Uranma '^right was not hereditary but later on it

turned to be so and the Karaima began to be absorbed by the Uranma.

This resulted in the apportioning of the temple property between the

members of the Urala Samiti. When the same Brahmin had the Uranma

rights in the properties of more than one temple they began to exchange,

13. The administration of the landed property of the temples was vested in a body of
Brahmins known as Urala Samithi.
14. Brahmin managers of temples is called Urallars.
15. The right to hold the temple properties by the members of the Ura la Samiti or
Uralars was known as Uranma.
 33

buy or sell these rights. This mode or disposal was known as

vechumaral}^

Janmam, the sanskritised form of the Dravidian phrase

nirattipperu, that is, birth right acquired by coming into contact with the

nir or water or water-contact birth right, was one of the popular kinds of

tenure which entitled the holders of land to collect his share of the produce

of the land and on which no payments were levied by the Raja at all.''

Of the origin of the Janmam rights, the Keralolpathi says - Parasurama

created Malayalam, the Keralabhumi and gave it as a gift to the Brahmins

of the sixty four gramams. The gift of flower and water given to the

sixty four gramams together for their enjoyment is called Janmam}^

Afterwards he gave the right called Rajamsam to 3,600 Brahmins often

gramams by pouring water on the sword. They can put their fingers in

water and say this is my Janmam, but the others may not put their fingers

in water and say the statement 'this is my Janmam\ they have only

enjoyment.'^

16. P. Radhakrishnan, op.cjY., p. 30.

17. Travancore Archaeological Series, Vol. II, Pt. I, pp. 60-85.
18. Ibid., p. 21.
19. C.A. Innes (ed.), Malabar Gazeetter, Vol. II, (rpt), Trivandrum, 1977, p. 309.
 34

The ancient records do not make mention of the term, 'Janmani'

to denote proprietary right of the soil instead, other terms as' attipperu'

and nirattipperu do occurs.^° Scholars had different opinion about the

term ''attipperu'. H.H. Wilson thinks that it is a freehold property.^^

Where as for Hultzsh, "it is alienation of rights".^^ Vanjeri Grandhavari

gives the earliest recorded document on attipperu?^ From there it can

be inferred that the term 'Janmam' acquired association with land only

during medieval period particularly, between the fifth and sixth

centuries.^"*

The right conveyed by it was not a freehold or an allodium, but an

office or dignity with a fixed share of the produce of the soil. The

Nambudiris who migrated to Malabar in large numbers and as an

organized body in the seventh and eighth century and who were received

with open arms by the Perumals, managed to obtain commanding

20. The record of Sthanu Ravi, (AD 849) testified this fact. Travancore Archaeological
Series, VoLH, pt.l, pp.60-85.
21. H.H. Wilson(ed.), A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms and Useful Words
Occurring in Official Documents Relating to the Administration of British India,
Delhi, 1968, p.38.
22. E. Hultzsch (ed.), Epigraphia Indica, Vol. n, Pt. n, Calcutta, 1824, pp. 66-69.
23. M.GS Narayanan, op.cit., p. 22.
24. Genevieve Lemerciner, Religion and Ideology in Kerala, New Delhi, 1989, p.39.
 35

influence in the region precisely at the time when the Perumals threatened

by the Western Chalukyas.^^ Janmam was in the sole gift of the Perumal,

explains how the Nambudiris became large Janmis even at an early stage

of the evolution of the land system in Malabar. From the time, the last

Perumal left the chieftains who remained almost without any change of

limits in their respective Nadu did not confer on themselves the

prerogative of creating Janmam - holding - a prerogative which had

belonged to their emperor alone. But, of their weakening of this power

after the Portuguese advent led to the creation of numerous pseudo-

Janmams. This might have fijrther helped the Nambudiris to emerge as

the predominant group oi Janmis. The Janmi did not cultivate the land

which came under his possession, but leased it out to others and further

different tenures were thus created . It follows that between Janmi and

agricultural labourers there were numerous intermediaries.

Thus, not only the owners of the land had powers over the

mechanism of production, but also holders of land enjoyed the same

privilege. The initimate relationship between the ownership and control

25. M.G.S Narayanan, Political and Social Condition of Kerala under the Kulasekhara
Empire (800-1124 AD). University of Kerala, 1972, p. 44.
 36

was an important feature of medieval societies and Malabar was not an

exception to it.^^

The question of ownership of Janmam still raises a number of

controversies, as the Janmam is the key element to understand ancient

land law. Genevieve Lemercinier endorses the opinion of Francis

Buchanan, who states that only Nambudiri would have owned Janmam

and that they leased it as Kanam to Nair families. These families did not

always farm the land themselves but leased it on to farmers or to

employed workers on their fields.^'' Alexander Walker had the opinion

that anyone who had a sufficient amount of money available was able to

gain ownership oi Janmam?^ Innes and Evans also emphasis that the

Nairs could be both as owners of land (Janmakaran) as well as

leaseholders (Kanakkaran) the Janmis, who then included Moplahs,

and Tiyyas in their number as well as Nairs and Brahmins as being

infact in the position of landholders, and Kanakkars ^^ in the position of

the tenants.
26. Johnsy Mathews, Economy and Society in Medieval Malabar (A.D.I500-1600),
Changanassery, 1996, p.96.
27. C.A. limes (ed.), op.cit., p. 290.
28. Alexandar Walker, op.cit., p. 112.
29. William Logan, op.cit., Vol.1, p. 290.
 37

Kathleen Gough claims that one could sell free not only the rights

ofJanmam but also those of Kanam. The local kuttam had to give its

consent to a transaction before it could be considered legally binding.

Thus a Kanakkaran could not be forced into giving up his Kanam as

long as he had the Kuttam on his side. According to Gough, it was not

unusual in Northern Malabar for Nairs both to own land and to farm it

themselves, and thus to be scarcely dependant on land owning Nambudiris

at all.3o

Beneath Janmam was Kanam, the right to supervise or protect all

the inhabitants of the particular Nadu wherein the land lay. Though

socially subordinate to the Janmi, for this service the Kanakkaran enjoyed

a fixed share of the net produce of the soil equal in amount to that enjoyed

by the Janmi?^ In other words, like the Janmi, the Kankkaran was also

a part proprietor of the soil to the extent of one third of the net produce

(including the right to sell, subdivide and sublet his holdings). In theory

he was never a fixture on any particular piece of land, for he was the

30. Katheleen Gough, Changing Kinship Usages in the Setting of Political and Economic
Change among the Nairs of Malabar, California, 1962, pp.77-81.
31. Ibid., p. ^3.
 38

hereditary protector of his Nadu and not unless under special grants the

hereditary protector of any particular bit of it.^^ In practice, however, he

was permanently attached to his holding, as the Janmi would not dare to

out set him for fear of spreading insecurity and discontent among the

Kanakkar who remained.^^ On this point William Logan has quoted the

views of Rickards, the second of the principal Collector of Malabar, that

it was, indeed the interest of the Janmis to treat them {Kanakkar) well,

for they were not only the chief means of providing the Janmis income,

but composed his retinue of armed followers, a dire need to his

consequences and weight on the aristocracy.^'' On this part, the

Kanakkaram was, however, free to transfer his services to anyone who

else who suited him better. If he relinquished his holding he was to be

paid for or allowed to sell any improvements he made upon it and his

position as a number of the protecting caste made it very difficult for the

Janmi to refuse such payments.^^

32. GQneviQvehQraercimeT, Religion and Ideology in Kerala, Y)e\hi, 1984, p. 136.

33. Ibid., p. 94.
34. William Logan, op.cit.. Vol. I, p. 26.
35. K.P. Padmanabha Menon, History of Kerala, Delhi, 1986, pp. 318-319.
 39

Kanam had a specific function to undertake in the actual process

of cultivation. It had the characteristics of lease and mortgages.^^ The

tenant was given undisturbed possession of the land of twelve years and

had to be reimbursed of all unexhausted improvements when evicted.^^

After twelve years possession it could be renewed by paying renewal

fees. Those who possessed vast areas of landed property in Malabar

were the Nair chief as Samanta which was controlled by Madampis and

Naduvazhis for centuries. In this condition the number of Nair Janmis

increased in Malabar by leaps and bounds.^^

The renewal of Kanam was considered a prerogative inherent in

Janmam rights. If the Kanam tenant (Kanakkaran) advanced a further

sum of money and was entitled to deduct from the rent, the interest on

money so advanced, this advance was cdM^Apuravaipa. In certain cases,

when the tenant was unwilling to make the advance, the landlord turned

to a third person and would accept melkanam or melcharth on condition

that he would transfer the land to him after terminating his contact with

36. C.A Innes(ed.), op.cit., p.309.

37. Duarte Barbosa, op.cit.. Vol. II, p. 60.
38. P.R.G Mathur, Tribal Situation in Kerala, Trivandmm, 1977, p. 98.
 40

his earlier tenant.^^ The land was entitled to polichezhuthu ( a renewal

fee) each time a customary period of tenure expired and this practically

amounted to an enhancement of rent. Four kinds of fees were collected

from the tenants as renewal fees."**^ This deed was equivalent for the

tenant profit named Chirlabham which he was supposed to receive from

the lands. It was customary on the part of the tenants to make annual

payments to the landlord. The most notable of such payments was

michavaram^^ or the rent fixed at the time of the transaction of land.

The tenants' share in the land was usually, one third of the net

produce and it was given mostly as kind in the northern Malabar in the

michavaram system. The landlord took what sum they could persuade

or compel their tenants to part with.'*^ The relation between the landlord

and tenant was based on kana janma maryada.

The tenures involve both mortgage and lease. Leases may be

either temporary or perpetual (sasvatham). Temporary leases were

39. C. Ramachandra Aiyer, A Manual of Malabar Law, Calicut, 1883, p.26.
40. Harbert Wigram, A Commentary on Malabar Law and Custom, Madras, 1882, pp.
106-108.
41. The proprietor's rent ofJanmi property after deducting the interest of the Kanam or
money advanced by the tenant is called michavaram.
42. T.K. Velupillai, Travancore State Manual, Vol.HI, Trivandrum, 1940, p. 155.
 41

classified into Verumpattam and Kuzhikkanapattam. Verumpattam was

the most prominent among them. It was the most usual form of

landholding during that time. Most of the tenant cultivators belonged to

this class under the title Verumpattakkar or kudiyan. Under this a

particular land was given on lease for a year only. After deducting the

cost of seed and cultivation, the whole of the estimated produce of the

land was payable to the landlord. Here, the tenant (Kudian) was just a

labourer, subsisting on wages and can be evicted at will by the Janmi.

In certain cases one third of the net produce after deducting the cost of

seed and cultivation was reserved for the Kudiyan and the rest went to

the Janmi. Whereas in other cases two year's rent called muppattam

was paid in advance at the commencement of the tenancy as security, for

the annual payment of rent which will be refimded at the expiry of the

lease.'*^

Verumpattam was the holding of the actual cultivator under the

Kanakkaran prevailed in those days. In many respects the

Verumpattakkar an was socially subordinate to the Janmi and

43. Johnsy Malhews, op.cit., p.97.

 42

Kanakkaran. Not withstanding that, he was also part proprietor to the

extent of one-third of the produce (including the right to sell, or sublet

his holdings and to payment for improvements when he relinquished his

holding). Probably the Verumpattakkar were originally drawn from the

Nairs as Vellalars, irrigators or cultivators of wet land, in addition to

their own peculiar function as Kanakkar, and from the Tiyyas as

cultivators of the waste and garden lands."*^

This tenure embracing leases generally given for wet lands with

their currency limited to one year. This is also known as Verumkari or

Verumkozhu. Munpattam, Talapattam and Kozhukanam or Kuttikanam

were different varieties which fall under those groups. In all these leases,

the tenant generally deposits with the landlord a sum of money equal to,

and sometimes greater than, one year's rent as security. As a rule, no fee

(suchi) was paid to the lessor, but in the case of what is called pandara

pattam lands,'*^ a fee was paid by the lessee annually at the rate of one

rupee for every/?ara 's '^^ seed area. By the payment of this fee, the lessee

acquires a right to hold for twelve years.

44. Francis Buchanan, op.c/7., p.366.
45. Lands belonging to the Rajas is known as pandara pattam lands.
46. Para is a measuring unit which usually contain ten ser. One ser is equal to that of 1.25 kg.
 43

Kuzhikkanam or Kuzhikkanapattam '^ was another tenure by which

a landlord lets out dry land ox parambu to a tenant on condition of the

latter's planting out the waste portion of the ground and paying a

stipulated rent to the landlord."*^ The lease runs for a period of twelve

years ordinarily, but neglects to cultivate or denial of the landlord's title

forfeits the tenure. Perhaps he paid a fee of two fanams on entry, but

that was more as an act of fealty than as recipients for the privilege of

possession. At the end of this period he was paid at customary rates for

the improvements made by him, in terms of the shares due as pattam,

before the customary law regulating the distribution of the produce came

into operation. William Logan's reference to this tenure is too brief This

was probably because of its interim nature. Once the sharing of the

produce was began, it automatically became one of the principal tenures,

presumably the Kanam.

The Kuzhikkanam farmers made improvement on the land for

which they were entitled to receive compensation on the expiry of his

47 . The term is derived from the Dravidan term Kuzhi and Kanam meaning 'pit' and
'money' respectively. See WiUiam Logan, op.cit.. Appendix XIH-CXCVIII.
48. The former originally applying to entirely waste land, and the latter to a piece of
groimd partly cultivated and partly uncultivated, but now indiscriminately applying
to both sorts of land.
 44

term. The farmer was required to pay a stipulated rent as well as to plant

new trees. This type of lease was used to bring waste land under

cultivation in all parts of Malabar. As one Veppolakaranam deed of 1581''^

reveals, Kuzhikkanam was apparently fixed according to the custom of

the village. Landlord either renewed the deed or gave the land to a new

person after giving the compensation for the improvements the farmer

had made on the land.^*^

Forest lands cultivated with paddy periodically used to be let out

on the understanding that at a time of harvest the tenant should go to the

landlords with presents reaps the crop in the presence of an agent and

divide the produce between him and the lord.^* Kuzhikkanam tenants

were not supposed to give any advance or tax to the lord and no rent was

paid in the north Malabar in the initial years of cultivation which involved

high cost and hard labour on the part of the tenants. It was to encourage

them to undertake cultivation."

49. M.G.S Narayanan (ed.), Vanjeri Grattdhavari, Doc.No.27-A, Calicut, 1987, p. 15.
50. The tenant had the right to get compensation for three kinds of improvement at the
cost of his labour. They were kuzhikur, chamayam and vettukanam. Kuzhikur is
plantation of new trees bearing fruits. All the fixtures like wells is known as chamayam.
Vettukanam in actual telling.
5 1 . Report of the Malabar Tenancy Committee, Vol. I, para. 107.
52. Johnsy Mathews, op.cit., p.98.
 45

There were also perpetual leases of different types. Saswatham

leases were perpetual leases. They do not require renewal and tenure

either for the life time of the lessee or until failure of heirs. The properties

held under these tenures were enjoyed perpetually by the holders thereof

Grants were made in the form of perpetual leases either for consideration

or for services rendered or to be rendered. A few of them are the

following, Atima or Kudima was one among them and came under service

tenures. In this case a piece of land was handed over in perpetuity to the

grantee either unconditionally for certain services. Persons engaged in

certain specific work in the villages were not given salary; instead they

were remunerated by a piece of land for instance the village artisans

such as Thattan, Asari, Kusavan and Chaliyan were protected in this

way for division of labour in the society." As a symbol of the recognition

of the property right of the land lord, a nominal fee was paid annually to

him. In general this tenure was called viruthi which means livelihood.

Meanwhile, that the land was granted to low caste^'' termed as kavel

atima.

53. K. Maheswaran Nair, Epigraphia Malabarica, Trivandrum, 1972, pp. 81-91.

54. S. Sundare Raj a Iyengar, Land Tenures in the Madras Presidency, Madras, 1916, p .247.
 46

Anubhavam was another prominent lease. In certain cases a little

dignity would be conferred on some one for honouring that person. If

the land was granted to a high caste Brahmin, it was called

sanatibrahmaswam^^ while the land grant to a high caste non-Brahmin

was called anubhavam. The holder of anubhavam cannot be

dispossessed, and the right is hereditary; but if the grantee or any of his

descendants die without heirs, the land reverts to the Janmi, and on the

succession of heirs the Janmi was entitled to Purushantharam. In some

instances a trifling payment of one or two fanams was made by the grantee

to the Janmi in token of acknowledgement of proprietorship. The

hereditary grant of anubhavam ofthepurapad,^^ or residue ofpurapad after

deducting mortgage interest, which remains in the hands of a mortgagee,

was sometimes made to the mortgagee himself, or to some other person

connected with the land to whom the mortgagee was required to pay it.^^

Karamkari or Janmakozhu was third type of lease prevailed at

that time. A nominal fee was ordinarily payable to the Janmi on

55. Bhattaviruthi or Adhyana f7rw?/j/are examples.

56. Purappad is the net balance payable to the Janmi. C.A Innes (ed.), op.cit., p.309
57. William Logan, op.cit.. Vol H, p.89.
 47

acknowledgement of his title, in which case it was called Karamkari or

Janmakozhu. When the proprietary title was vested in a pagoda or

temple the grant would be made for future services. The tenants in the

northern parts of Malabar had only a little interest in property which at

death would revert to the proprietor.^^ Except where the land granted for

special services, an annual rent was payable under this tenure.

Karaima mode of tenure consisted in the grant of land to temple

servants for performing certain offices also existed.^^ Under Karaima,

tenants were not liable to be ejected. But in case of default on the part of

the tenant which would have caused the employment of another person

to do service in the temple, the land would be resumed. The Karaima

tenant could enjoy the entire produce from the property as long as he

was willing to do service to the temple and the landlord did not part with

the proprietory right over the lord. The tenant had to pay a nominal

amount of two fanams to the landlord as a mark of his allegiance to the

latter.

58 C. Ramachandra Aiyar, op.cit., p. 47.

59 T.K. Krishna Menon (ed.). Progress of Cochin, Emakulam, 1932, p. 130.
 48

Arijanmam^ was another kind of tenure whereby trustees of the

temple granted some land to a person who had the obligation of supplying

a fixed quantity of rice for nivedya (offering) in the temple after the

usual offering to the deity the tenant was allowed to take back the cooked

rice for his own use. Besides these there were Achandrarkam and Vaga.

Achandrarkam (so long as the sun and the moon last) and Vaga were

also permanent grants. Grants under any of these forms were said to be

resumable by the grantor on failure of heirs in the family of the grantee.^'

Likewise there were different kinds of mortgages existed during

that time. One was Chundipanayam. Under this tenure the land was

pledged for the repayment with the interest for the amount advanced.^^

Kozhurokapanayam was another term that was also prevalent. Major

Walker explains other system as Kettivadakapanayam. According to

him it was usufructuary mortgage in which the mortgager remaining

in possession till he makes default in payment of interest." The lender

60 The term Arijanmam consists of two words Ari and Janmam meaning rice and right
on land. The term signifies land due to the offering of rice.
61 Lewis Moore, Malabar Law and Custom, Madras, 1905 edn, p. 196.
62 The term.panayam used above or in connection with Chunti or Thodu means a simple
mortgage it usufructuary it is called Katipanayam or Kaivasapanayam.
63 Major Walker, Report on the Tenures and Forms of Transfer of Land in Malabar,
20th July, 1801, Calicut, p. 23.
 49

did not get the possession of the land nor could he interfere in the

management of property.

Todupanayam, another kind of mortgage in which the mortgagee

got the right to take possession of the mortgaged in case of default of

payment of interest as agreed in the deed of Karaima. ^

Karipanayam and Unduruthipanayam were other forms of

mortgage. Karipanayam was an usufruct or part thereof of the property

in lieu of interest. Whereas Unduruthipanayam, the principal debt was

liquidated^^ by the surplus usufruct after payment of interest only.

Otti, another mortgage was described as an usufractuary with

possession and the mortgagee enjoying the entire produce of the land

and the landlord merely retaining the proprietory title and the power to

redeem, but mere Kanam free from payment of rent will not make it an

Otti.^^ In the right of pre-emption which the Otti holder possesses in

case the Janmi wishes to sell the premises and in the amount secured

64 Graeme, op. cit., p. 1510.

65 Unduruthipanayam was a mortgage with possession the surplus produce not being
paid to the landlord but earned to his credit.
66 William Logan, op.cit.. Vol. II, p.269.
 50

being so large that, practically, the Janmis'' right was merely to receive a

pepper com rent.^'' The right of pre-emption includes the option to make

further advances as well as the right of continuing to hold as mortgagee

in preference to others. Hence an agreement with a third party to redeem

the Otti on payment of the mortgage amount was invalid.

In the Kaipattu Otti tenure, the landlord passed before he made

up his mind to execute a deed of final surrender.^^ In Kaipattu Otti

transaction cash was used. The use ofputupanam in some documents

reveals that fact.^^ The mortgagee obtained the possession of the parambu

but not the complete ownership. The amount advanced was almost the

value of the land. The mortgagee, had no right to cut the trees or cremate

the deceased on mortgaged land.

Under Ottikumpuram tenure, the landlord was in need of a fiirther

loan, the mortgagee advanced a further amount to the landlord and

assumed two third of the Janmam rights^° and dispossessed the original

Janmakkar.
67 Malabar Tenancy Act, op.cit., p. 30.
68 William Logan, op.cit.. Vol. II, p. CXXXI.
69 Cfr. Perumpadappu Swarupam Grandhavari, Appendix 2-2, p. 241.
70 Travancore Archaeological Series, Vol. VII, Pt. II, p. 32.
 51

When the landlord wanted to take another loan of over and above

twenty percent on the Kaivittu Otti, he executed another deed. This was

called nirmutal in northern Malabar and kutimanir in Cochin. The

landlord, thus lost seven eighth of his authority on \h& paramhu which

went to the mortgagee.

Perumartham tenure, another kind of a transaction under which

the land was mortgaged for its full value and can only be redeemed on

payment of the full market value at the time of the redemption, the tenant

having the benefit of any raise in value. The landlord retained only the

title ofJanmi and when he wanted to get it back, he had to pay the actual

market value.

Janmapanayam was the another kind of mortgage. Under

Janmapanayam tenure the landlord beyond surrendering the usufruct,

mortgaged his Janmam and relinquished the power to redeem it. He

had nothing left in him but the nominal right of proprietorship. The last

and final deed of completing the sale and transfer of the fullfi"eehold to

the purchaser was known as attipper^^ or attippettola. The inscription

71 Absolute alienation of ya«mam land is known as a^jppe/: Ruling Chieftain, Kaimals,
etc. were present at the time of attipper. Travancore Archaeological Series, Vol.
VII, Pt. n, p. 58.
 52

of Sthanu Ravi records purchase of land with libation of water.^^ This

reveals that attipperu existed in ancient times and other tenures developed

later.

The forgoing account throws light on the various ways of land

transactions intent on the effective system of cultivation. There were

innumerous intermediaries placed in between the Janmi and the agrestic

labourers who were the primary producers. These intermediaries included

peasants who were called substantial farmers as they had a few families

of agrestic slaves staying in the property they held and always at their

beck and call. They had their own agricultural implements, draught

animals and hired servants to supervise the cultivation. There were also

peasants who came in after paying considerable sums of money to those

who wished to bring wasteland under cultivation. They formed a very

large section of the middle class peasants of Malabar,

The distinctive characteristics of ancient system of landholding in

Malabar may be briefly summarised as follows. The Janmam right in

Malabar was originally in the hands of a limited aristocracy; the temples,

72 Travancore Archaeological Series, Vol. n, Pt. I, pp. 60-85.
 53

the Nambudiri Brahmins, the Rajas and petty chieftains were the only

owners of land. All other persons held on a derivative tenure. The Janmi

rarely engaged himself in the active business of cultivation; a considerable

portion of the land was in the possession of tenure-holders and the grant

of lands on different tenures was recognised as a customary mode of

enjoying them by well-to-do families and, in consequence, it did not

require necessity or consent of junior members to validate it.

Secondly, there was tenacious attachment to the ownership of the

soil which accounts for the customary law prescribing with minute

particularity the rights of the several classes who possessed interests in

land.^^ The incidents of the tenures were of a highly equitable character

and land afforded the safest form of an investment. Thirdly, the greatest

freedom in the transfer of rights in land obtained in Malabar. Every

holder of land had a right of transfer. The tenant had the right to sell or

subdivide or sub-let his holding without reference to the landlord.

Fourthly, the usual form of mortgage was one that could not be foreclosed

and it conferred upon the mortgagee no right to demand a sale; nor could

73 Report of the Malabar Land Tenures Committee, ^zxdiAQT).

 54

the mortgagee resort to any other property of his debtor nor arrest his

person. Fifthly, in ancient times, there was no such thing as land tax in

Malabar. It had its origin probably in Kavali, a tax for protection, and

did not imply a negation of the Janmis proprietary rights. Lastly, free

distribution of property was hampered by the peculiar social condition

and laws of inheritance which restrict partition and alienation.

Though William Logan's description of the three-tier land system

clearly brings out his contention that in pre-British Malabar property

rights were imperfectly developed and regulated by customary rights, it

need to be emphasised that it had certain limitation. It did not explain

the co-existence of a two-tier land system as, well with Janmam at the

top and either by Kanam or only Verumpattam below it, nor did it explain

the complexity of Kanam and Verumpattam rights, with each having a

multiplicity of sub-tenures. More importantly, even in its imperfect form,

whatever advantages the land system held out were virtually confined to

the Janmis and the Kanakkar and did not percolate the other groups to

any significant extent. In relation to these groups the land system was

highly oppressive and exploitative-a point which William Logan did not
 55

emphasis adequately. This was so mainly of two reasons. First the

pyramidal structure of the land system with each Janmi having a large

number of Kanakkar under him, and each Kanakkar having numerous

Verumpattakkav, apart from the numerous under tenants in the last two

groups. In such a structure equal distribution of the share of the produce

to the three principal groups, as mentioned by William Logan, would

not have resulted in equality in the total produce received by each. The

Janmi received an equal sharefromhis Kanakkar. The Kanakkar received

an equal sharefromeach of his Verumpattakkar. But the Verumpattakkar

received only his single share. Secondly, the privileges and prerogatives

which the Janmi and the Kanakkaran enjoyed by the virtue of their

superior status in the land system apart from the status of the former as

undoubtedly Lord Paramount over all the occupants of his Janmam

holdings, and of the latter as matter of all the lower classes settled on his

holdings. In addition to the share of the produce of the soil, the Janmi

was also entitled to various ranks and dignities of sorts. He was

sometimes commandant of the militia of the Desam (Hamlet); he was

perhaps invariably at first, a man of authority in the protector guild of

Nairs, he was often the buntees of village temples. Because of these,

 56

and other privileges and prerogatives, the price of the empty name of

Janmi was estimated as worth exactly half the produced at which the

productiveness of the land to the Janmi was valued. The Janmi could

use these privileges and prerogatives as a means of social closure to

perpetuate his social domination and the subordination of the groups

below him, especially the lower ones.