218 



for the amelioration of their condition, as detailed in the 

 foregoing pages, while the former have remained in most 

 parts of the country in much the same condition as before. 

 The Zemindari ryots form nearly one-fourth of the total 

 agricultural population of the Presidency, and as the question 

 of improving their status is now engaging the attention of 

 Government, the following remarks are offered for consider- 

 ation. 



81. For a proper understanding of the relations of Zemin- 

 dars and ryots, it is necessary briefly to 



The rights of the cul- j ^^ ^j^ ^^^^ ^f ^^^ ^^gg ^^f^j^^ ^^^ 



tivatmg classes to the o . , . 



lands held by them permanent Settlement was carried out m 

 MahLM:da°'°j,°e:°' t^e beginning of the century, and to form 

 some idea as to how far the relations then 

 subsisting have been affected by subsequent legislation and 

 judicial decisions. Ancient Hindu law recognized only 

 two beneficial interests in land, viz., (1) that of the sovereign 

 or his representative, and (2) that of the cultivators hold- 

 ing the land either individually or as members of a joint 

 family or a joint village community. Neither the sovereign 

 nor the cultivators had unlimited proprietary right or 

 full ownership in the modern sense. The sovereign's right 

 consisted in his power to collect a share of the produce of 

 the cultivated lands, known by the name Melvaram in the 

 southern districts of the Presidency ; and this Melvaram is 

 not rent in the strict signification of the term. The share of 

 the ryots or cultivators is known by the name Kudivaram ; 

 and by ryots ^^ is to be understood "the cultivators who 

 employ, superintend and assist the labourer, and who are every- 

 where the farmers of the country, the creators and payers of 

 the land revenue." The ryot's right to land arises from mere 

 occupution ; ^^ and is not derived from the sovereign in the 

 manner in which the right of an English tenant is, under 

 modern English law, derived from his landlord. The relation 

 between the Government and the ryot may perhaps be de- 

 scribed as one of co-partnership,^^ but it is certainly not that 

 of landlord and tenant. The ancient Hindu law-books 

 clearly establish this position. The Hindu law-giver Menu 

 declares ^* cultivated land "to be the property of him who 



" See definition given by the Madras Board of Revenue in Proceedings, dated 5th 

 January 1818, page 370 of the "Papers on Mirasi Right." 



'^ Vide Judgment of the Madras High Court in Sivasubramanya versus the Secre- 

 tary of State for India : I.L.R., IX, Madras, page 285. Also decision in the Attapadi 

 valley case : I.L.R., IX, Madras, page 175. 



'* See para. 45 >. i^s memorandum and the authorities quoted in the ndte at its foot. 



" See minuteC/rS: Charles Turner, lat© Chief Justice of Madras, on the draft 

 Bill relating to Malabar Land Tenures. < 



