Temple as Landlord

The ownership of the land assumes a greater significance in an enquiry about the agrarian system in Kaveri region, since it had an internal frontier till very late period which can be reclaimed for cultivation, thereby creating new land ownership.

The primitive slash and burn cultivation had made individual plots. The land was held commonly by the tribal village authorities. The process of detribalisation that started with the advent of the Cholas could have resulted in the dismemberment of collective land holdings, resulting in the emergence of single family owner farms.^[1]

According to Manu, the Indian law giver, the king or the state was the owner of all lands in the country. The truth is that the rights of the king were only theoretical, and he was no more the actual proprietor of the soil than he is of his subjects.

Two inscriptions from Tiruchirappalli region mention the sale of land by private person in accordance and acceptance by the Mandru or Sabha of the village. It could be noted that the common ownership was the most ancient form of ownership and private ownership emerged as a result of accumulation of wealth and grants, which was very much visible during the medieval period of the study region. As for the right of the king, it was only theoretical, confined to the claim of a share of the revenue.

The medieval epigraphs were concerned with the land grants of a religious nature the recipients being temples, mathas, salais, etc., though the most common category of land grant to temple was known as the devadana, specific nomenclature were used to the grant of a land to a particular sect or religion such as Tirunamattukkani or Saivite shrines, Tiruvidiyattam for Vaishnavite shrines and Pallichandam for Buddhist and Jain shrines. Further, when a whole village was granted as devadana, the settlement invariably received the place name suffix Nallur.^[2]

Besides the devadana grants, Nimatappuram endowment of land were also made to defray expenses connected with particular rituals or requirements in the temple. From Uraiyur, a record that a grant of land called Nimantappuram was made for the supply of senkalunirtthamarai, water supply in the temple of the place also referred to an epigraph as Senkalunirppuram.

There is an interesting reference to the grant of land as ‘Ponvilai Devadanam’ in a Uraiyur record, which was ear marked for providing the deity with jewellery, and it is specially stated in the record that the temple authorities were to replenish the treasury of the temple, which is said to have been lost, by utilizing the land. A record refers to the assignment of land, sowable with three kalams of paddy seed, by the king to the Senapathi, named Ganaradittan Ganapati alias Rajaraja-pangala Nadudaiyan.

Epigraphs make a reference to the grant of land for specified services in the temple as follows: Amuthu padippuram, endowment of land for the ritual of food offering; Manttiraponakam for food offering; Tiruchennelpuram for ritual offering of red rice (Chamba) Unnalikkappuram for the upkeep of the sanctum sanctorum; Tirumelukkuppuram for dousing the floor with cow dung; Putukkupuram for renovating the temple; Vilakkupuram for the upkeep of the lamp; Amavasipuram for the rituals on new moon day; Tiruvottachamappuram for the midnight rituals; Tirunandavanappuram to be used as the flower garden.^[3].

Temple acted as the landlord having many tenants under it. The most striking feature in this history of this temple donation is the spontaneity with which the king, prince, queen and princess, government employees, traders and even most ordinary of the king’s subjects came forward to help the cause of the temple.^[4]

The gifts were purchases and by confiscating lands for misappropriation of temple property and in a few cases by bequest of property by pious people or by accepting land in lieu of taxes due to the temple. The temple had generally had large areas of land in its possession often marked out by the Tiruchulam or the Tiruvali. Some temples had a large income or other less, the richer temples in a few cases being prepared to help their poorer neighbour with their surplus income.^[5]

How far the temple as a land owner differed from other private land owners, we have no means of ascertaining. But that the temple had a special character of its own is maintained by the fact that leases were entered in the name of Chandeeshwara, the first servant of God, thus reminding the tenants that they were held of God and not of human agency.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Manickam, V., Kongu Nadu (A History upto A.D.1400), Chennai, 2001, p 383.

[2]:

Ibid., p. 384.

[3]:

S.I.I., Vol.V, No.40; S.I.I.,Vol.V, No.241; A.R.E. 428 of 1959.

[4]:

Arokiaswami, M., op.cit., pp. 298-308.

[5]:

A.R.E., 203 of 1912; 431 of 1919;330 of 1921,113 of 1911 and 537 of 1912.