Melvaram & Kudivaram

Melvaram & Kudivaram rights:

A tenant, of course, derives his right from the landlord and in the case of a person thus acquiring his title, the rule referred to is unquestionably a most equitable rule.  For the theory as to the relation of landlord and tenant in England led to the view that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, every tenancy was to be taken to be a tenancy-at-will. In fact, such was the rule until the Judges altered it and laid down that general tenancies should be presumed to be, not tenancies-at-will, but tenancies from year to year.

There is absolutely no ground for laying down that the rights of ryots in Zemindaries invariably or even generally had their orgin in express or implied grants made by the Zamindar. It originated with the history of agricultural land-holding in this country. For, in the first place, sovereigns, ancient or modern, did not here set up more than a right to share of the produce raised by the raiyats in lands cultivated by them.

In the language of the Board of Revenue which long after the Permanent Settlement Regulations were passed, investigated and reported upon the nature of the rights of ryots in the various parts of the Presidency, whether rendered in service, in money or in kind and whatever paid to Rajas, Jagirdars, Zemindaries, Poligars, Mutadars, Shrotriemdars, Inumdars or to Govt officers, such as Tahsildars, Amildars, Amins or Thannadars, the payments which have always been made are universallly deemed the due of Govt. (The Proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 5th Jan, 1818).

Therefore, to treat such a payment by cultivators to zemindars as “rent” in the strict sense of the term and to imply therefrom the relation of landlord and tenant so as to let in the presumption of law that a tenancy in general is one from year to year, would be to introduce a mischievous fiction destructive of the rights of great numbers of the cultivating class in this province who have held possession of their lands for generations and generations.

In support of the view that there is no substantial analogy between an English tenant and an Indian ryot, it is enough to cite the high authority of Sir Thomas Munro Writing in 1824, he observes “the raiyat is certainly not like the landlord in England, but neither is he like the English tenant”. Why is this so? It is for the simple reason that the rights of raiyats came into existence mostly, not under any lotting by the Govt of the day or its assignees, the zamindaries etc, but independently of them.  According to the best Native authorities, such rights were generally acquired by cultivators entering upon the land, improving it, and making it productive.

Manu and other Hindu writers have rested private property on occupation as owner. What may be termed the Hindu common law, a right to the possession of land is acquired by the first person who makes a beneficial use of the soil. Hence the well known division in these parts of the great interests in land under two main heads of the ‘melvaram interest’ and the ‘kudivaram interest’.  Hence also the view that the holder of the kudivaram right, far from being a tenant of the holder of the melvaram right, is a co-owner with him.

Sir T.Munro puts this very clearly: He says: “A raiyat divides with Govt all the rights of the land. Whatever is got reserved by Govt belongs to him. He is not a tenant-at-will, or for a term of years. He is not removable, because another offers more.

It thus seems unquestionable that prima facie a zamindar and a raiyat are holders of the melvaram and kudivaram rights, respectively. When, therefoe, the zamindar sues to eject the raiyat, it is difficult to see why the raiyat a right to continue in possession.

Considering the Regulation IV of 1822 which expressly declares that the actual rights of any of the land-holding classes were not intended to be affected by the earlier regulations, the phraseology of those enactments should not be taken to operate to the prejudice of persons between whom and zamindars the prima facie relations is only that between the holder of the kudivaram right and the holder of the melvaram right in a given piece of land.

**