Palayapat of Erchakka Nayakanur

Palayapat of Erchakka Nayakanur

Judgement by Madras High Court in 1890

Vira Chinnammal v. Akkulu Ammal, (1896) 6 MLJ 341

It appears from Nelson’s Manual that Erchakka Nayakanur was one the Dindigul palayams sequestered by Hyer Ali in 1757, that it was restored by one of his Amildars in 1758, that it was again resumed in 1773 by Mir Saheb who held the Dindigul country on military tenure under the ruler of Mysore and restored to the dispossessed palayagar in the same year shortly after Colonel Laing had taken Dindigul, and that it was resumed for the third time by Tippu Sultan in 1788 and restored to the then Palayagar by the Britich Govt after Colonel James had captured Dindigul in 1790. (Nelson’s Manual Part III Chap.XI 2902).

The property in litigation is the palayapat of Erchakka Nayakanur in the District of Madura. The parties are the co-widows of the last male owner Kadirvelu Sam Nayak, who died without male issue in Feb 1886.

Shortly after his death, the Collector of District made an enquiry to ascertain whether the Court of Wards to assume management of the estate. He came to the conclustion that it was not necessary to do so.

The Junior widow filed this suit. She claimed that the right of sole possession and management of the palayapat was considered impartible and the property and income by equal participation by both the widows. The Subordinate Court decreed her claim.

The Senior widow claimed that the estate is partible. In the appeal it was found that the palayapat is not an impartible estate.

The first palayagar recognised by the British govt was one Muthalagiri Nayak and he died in 1815 and was succeeded by his only son. The second palayagar Chinnvobala Nayak died without male issue in 1835, and though there was a controversy about the riht of succession between his widows Papammal and Chinnammal, the partition suit OS 265 of 1836 was decreed. Thereafter the junior widow died in 1853 and the estate was succeeded by Chinnvobala’s only daughter Virakamu Ammal. In 1882 she transferred the estate to her only son Kadirvelu Sami, whose death had led this litigation.

The Subordinate Judge decided that it was a military tenure upon which the estate was held prior to the introduction of the Britich rule. The Palayapat has existed before 1758 and that there never has been a partition. No sanad or original grant has been produced. But they produced a document being a reply to Sir Thomas Munro in 1822 to Zamindars regarding their family usasge, which reads:

“My ancestors in the territories of Rayar and during Rayar’s regime, pleased him very much by their conduct and by their rendering justice to the duties entrusted to them; and they converted the forest adjoining Pasumalai into a fertile spot, these lands were granted to them in writing in consideration of their services as jaghire. Thus my ancestors got the lands and the Pattain (dignity)”.

The feudal organisation of this group of Palayams into military fiefs under the rule of Visvanath Nayak in the 16^th century is also a matter of general political history. It is stated in the Nelson’s Manual that there were 72 bastions to the fort of Madura and each of them was placed formerly in charge of a particular chief who was hound for himself and his heirs to keep his post at all times and under all circumstances. He was also bound to pay a fixed annual tribute, to supply and keep in readiness a quota of troops for the Governor’s army and to keep the Governor’s peace over a particular tract of country. And in consideration of his promise to perform these and other services, a grant was made to him of a tract of country consisting of a certain number of villages and proprtioned to the rank and favour with which Visvanatha regarded him, together with the title of Palayagaran.

Speaking of the Nargantipalayam in 1861, the Privy Council observed that a Palayam was in the nature of a Raj and although it might belong to an undivided family, it was not subject to partition.

Adverting to the Zamindari of Sivaganga in 1863, their Lordships of the Privy Council remarked that its ancient tenure was that of a Raj or Principality (Kattama Natchiar v The Rajah of Shivaganga, 1863-9 MIA 543).

Erachakka Nayakanur is entered as one of the 24 palayams in the Dindigul country paying at that time a tribute of 500 chakkrams and if appears from that several palayams were petty chieftains paying tribute to the paramount power.

Therefore the observation of the Subordinate Judge that the Palayam was held on feudal or military tenure prior to the British rule and that it existed at least from 1758 and that the tenure raised a presumption of “impartibility” is well founded.

**