Theyyan Nair and Others vs Zamorin of Calicut and Others

The question for decision is whether, under 4he document (exhibit A) and the previous documents of which it is a renewal, the Plaintiff (who is

the jenmi or landlord) can eject the Defendants on the footing that they are only tenants at will or tenants from year to year. The words of the

document on which its character depends are ""the rent of 29 items...is 160 paras of the paddy, being the rent due, exclusive of allowance for

Adimayavana as heretofore."" The rent reserved therefore is the difference between the full rental value and the deduction which the tenant is

entitled to enjoy for his Adimayavana right. The whole question is what is the Adimayavana tenure which entitles him to a portion of the produce. If

that is a permanent tenure it is not contended that he can be ejected. ""Adimayavana"" in its etymological sense, may be translated ""beneficial

enjoyment on account of services,"" but there is ample judicial authority for holding that the phrase prima facie imports a permanent tenure which

was granted as a reward for past services or both for past and future services. In this respect, it is very similar to ""Anubhavam"" which was held by

this Court to be a permanent lease (Chera Narayanan Nambudripad v. Unni Rarichan S.A. No. 595 of 1878 (unreported). In that case, this Court

adopted the finding of Mr. Wigram, the District Judge of Malabar, who held that etymologically the word means no more than ''enjoyment,'' but to

a Malayali the word when found in a conveyance invariably means ''perpetual enjoyment'' and the tenure is irredeemable so long as it remains in the

grantee''s family. It is as nearly as possible equivalent to an inam holding on the Eastern Coast."" A similar view was adopted by this Court in

Manishere v. Kannan Nair S.A. No. 569 of 1879 ( unreported).

The Sadar Court, in their Proceedings of the 5th August 1856, refer to the Adina right in these words. ""In this case the land is made over in

perpetuity to the grantee either unconditionally as a mark of favour or on condition of certain services being performed. The terms Adina and

Kudima mean a slave or one subject to the landlord, the grant being generally made to such persons.... Land bestowed as a mark of favour can

never be resumed, but where it is granted as remuneration for certain services to be formed, the non-performance of such services, invoking the

necessity for having them discharged by others, will give the landlord power to recover the land."" In the present case it is not alleged or proved that

the grant was for future services to be rendered or that any services have been in fact rendered since the grant was made. It is therefore

unnecessary to consider whether in such eases the grant can be resumed by dispensing with the services or only when the services are discontinued

and the necessity of having them performed by others exists.

We may add that, in, the present case, the land has been in possession of the Defendants'' family and the rent payable has remained unaltered

from time immemorial (exhibits B, C, D and A).

The decision of this Court (Zamorin of Calicut v. Puliakote S.A. No. 602 of 1898 (unreported)) on which the lower Appellate Court relies,

proceeded upon the construction placed upon the instrument then sued upon, and the import of the Adimayavana tenure was not considered. We

are therefore not prepared to follow that decision as one that governs the present case. We therefore allow the second appeal and reversing the

decree of the Subordinate Judge restore that of the District Munsif, with costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.