with the Commentary of Medhatithi 234 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 240 из 350Следующая ⇒

kṣetriyasyātyaye daṇḍo bhāgād daśaguṇo bhavet |
tato'rdhadaṇḍo bhṛtyānāmajñānāt kṣetrikasya tu ||243||

When there is transgression on the part of the farmer himself, his fine shall be ten times the royal share, — half of that in the case of servants, if it is unknown to the farmer. — (243)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If there has been some ‘transgression’ — fault — on the part of the farmer himself, in connection with In’s farm, — such as untimely sowing, sowing of unripe seed, damage to the crops by his own cattle, harvesting before ripening, and so forth, — then the man should be fined ten times the amount of the king’s share.

If without the farmer’s knowledge, the wrong has been done by the servants employed by him — in the shape of night-watchers and others, — then these servants shall be fined half the aforesaid amount.

The construction is — ‘atyaye kṣetriyasya daṇḍaḥ.’

This has been set forth here in the present context, because it deals with cultivated fields. — (243)

Comparative notes by various authors:

Āpastamba (2.28.1). — ‘If a person who has taken up a plot of land for cultivation does not exert himself and hence the land bears no crop, he shall, if he is rich, be made to pay to the owner of the land the value of the crops that ought to have been grown.’

VERSE 8.244

Section XXXIX - Disputes between Owner and Keeper

एतद् विधानमातिष्ठेद् धार्मिकः पृथिवीपतिः ।
स्वामिनां च पशूनां च पालानां च व्यतिक्रमे ॥२४४॥

etad vidhānamātiṣṭhed dhārmikaḥ pṛthivīpatiḥ |
svāmināṃ ca paśūnāṃ ca pālānāṃ ca vyatikrame ||244||

This is the rule that the righteous king shall observe, in the case of transgressions by owners, by cattle and by the keepers. — (244)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

This verse is easily intelligible. — (244)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 176); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 139a).

VERSE 8.245 [Disputes regarding Boundaries]

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

सीमां प्रति समुत्पन्ने विवादे ग्रामयोर्द्वयोः ।
ज्येष्ठे मासि नयेत् सीमां सुप्रकाशेषु सेतुषु ॥२४५॥

sīmāṃ prati samutpanne vivāde grāmayordvayoḥ |
jyeṣṭhe māsi nayet sīmāṃ suprakāśeṣu setuṣu ||245||

When a dispute regarding boundaries arises between two villages, the king shall settle the boundary during the month of Jyeṣṭha, when the landmarks are distinctly perceptible. — (245)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Dispute regarding boundaries,’ — i.e., dispute on account of boundary: the particle ‘prati’ being a preposition, governs the accusative, according to Pāṇini 1.4.90: specially as the cause of a thing also can he spoken of as its characteristic feature.

‘Boundary’, — the limit of villages, their division, the exact determination of their extent.

‘Shall settle it’ — decide it, — ‘during the month of Jyeṣṭha.’

The text adds the reason why the boundary should be settled during this particular month: — ‘when the land-marks are distinctly perceptible’ — Boundary-marks are going to be described below; such as those consisting of clods of stone or things of that kind, and also thickets of grass and the like. Before the advent of the said month, while grass is growing on all sides, no difference could be perceived between grounds marked by a stone-piece and other grounds. When however, the boundary is marked by a piece of stone, if no grasses are visible, then the boundary is easily determined. Similarly In cases where demarcation has been done by creepers and thickets, the boundary should be settled before the advent of spring; for when trees and creepers are burnt down by forest-fires during the spring, no distinction could be perceived.

In as much as the text has put forward a reason for settling the dispute during a certain month, it is to be concluded that in a case where the marks are easily perceptible, the king should not wait for any particular month, thereby affording time to the parties concerned. It is only for the purpose of finding the necessary marks that one need wait for any particular month. This is the sole purpose served by the mention of the month of Jyeṣṭha. — (245)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 201), which adds the following notes: — ‘Nayet’, ‘should find out’; — ‘setu’ here stands for any mark of boundary, — where these are ‘saprakāśa,’ i. e., quite perceptible by reason of water having dried up; — the word ‘Jyaiṣṭha’ also should be taken as standing for any time which makes it possible for the boundary-marks to be perceived.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 758), which adds the following notes: — The term ‘grāma’ should be taken including cities, fields and houses in regard to which boundary-disputes arise, so that boundary-disputes fall into these four classes; — when the text mentions the month of ‘Jyeṣṭha’, it does not mean that it must be done during that month; all that it means to imply is convenience, that month being the most convenient for the purpose of determining boundaries; — ‘setu’ stands for bunds and other boundary-marks; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 92); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 142a), which says that the month of, ‘Jyeṣṭha’ is mentioned only by way of illustration; all that is meant is that it shall be done at a time when the boundary-marks may be perceptible, — and that ‘grāma’ stands for city also.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

Yājñavalkya (2.151). — ‘They should determine the boundary as indicated by a mound, coal, chaff or trees; as also by dikes, ant-hills, pits, bones, stone-piles and such other things.’

Nārada (11.4-5). — ‘They shall determine the boundary in accordance with old landmarks, chaff of grain, coal, potsherds, wells, sanctuaries, trees, — objects of general notoriety, such as ant-hills, artificial mounds, slopes, hills and the like, fields, gardens, roads and old dikes.’

Bṛhaspati (19.2-6). — ‘The determination of boundaries should be settled at the time of foundation, and it should be marked by visible and invisible signs, so as to dispel all doubt. Wells, tanks, pools, large trees, gardens, temples, mounds, channels, the course of a river, sands, shrubs, or piles of stones; — by such visible signs as these a boundary line should always be marked; also by other marks deposited underground, which the earth is not likely to destroy; — such as dry cowdung, bones, chaff, charcoal, stones, potsherds, sand, bricks, cow’s tails, cotton-seeds and ashes; after having placed these substances in vessels one should deposit them there underground at the extremities of the boundary.’

VERSE 8.246

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

सीमावृक्षांश्च कुर्वीत न्यग्रोधाश्वत्थकिंशुकान् ।
शाल्मलीन् सालतालांश्च क्षीरिणश्चैव पादपान् ॥२४६॥

sīmāvṛkṣāṃśca kurvīta nyagrodhāśvatthakiṃśukān |
śālmalīn sālatālāṃśca kṣīriṇaścaiva pādapān ||246||

He shall plant boundary-trees, — such as the Nyagrodha, the Aśvattha, the Kiṃśuka, the Śālmalī, the Sāla and the Tāla, — as also plants with milky juice. — (246)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Pādapa’ is plant. — ‘Plants with milky-juice’ — such as the Arka, the Udumbara and the like.

These trees are long-lived; hence they should he planted on boundaries; but never in the midst of the village. If they were planted elsewhere also, they could not he sure indicatives of boundaries. — (246)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151) as describing visible boundaries; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 202); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 270); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 73); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 139b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.247

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

गुल्मान् वेणूंश्च विविधान् शमीवल्लीस्थलानि च ।
शरान् कुब्जकगुल्मांश्च तथा सीमा न नश्यति ॥२४७॥

gulmān veṇūṃśca vividhān śamīvallīsthalāni ca |
śarān kubjakagulmāṃśca tathā sīmā na naśyati ||247||

Also thickets, bamboos of various kinds, the Śamī-tree, creepers and mounds, reeds and Kubjaka thickets; trees shall not be obliterated. — (247)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Thickets’ — shrubs growing together in a compact form.

‘Bamboos’ — i.e., such trees as the Casta Fistula and the like; as there are many varieties of these, the text has added the epithet ‘of various kinds.’

‘Creepers’ — tendrils; those species of grass that have long-extending roots.

‘Mound’ — is an artificial raised grass-plot.

The Kubjaka being a ‘thicket’ (already mentioned before), it has been specially singled out, on account of its importance. — (247)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 202), which adds the following notes: — ‘Gulmāḥ’, branchless shrubs, — ‘vallyaḥ’; the guḍūcī and other creepers, — ‘sthalāni’, artificial earth-mounds, — ‘kubjaka gulma’, bushes of kubjaka (Rose).

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151), whereon Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Gulma’ is shrub without branches, or merely grass-clump, — ‘sthala’ is artificially elevated ground, — ‘daṇḍakagulma’ (which is one reading for ‘kubjakagulma’) is not the right reading, the correct one being ‘kupyakagulma’, which means ‘such shrubs as are related to (used in the cleaning and polishing of) copper and other metals (except gold and silver)’; — ‘tathā’, i.e., ‘on this being done’; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 93).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.248

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

तडागान्युदपानानि वाप्यः प्रस्रवणानि च ।
सीमासन्धिषु कार्याणि देवतायतनानि च ॥२४८॥

taḍāgānyudapānāni vāpyaḥ prasravaṇāni ca |
sīmāsandhiṣu kāryāṇi devatāyatanāni ca ||248||

Tanks, water-reservoirs, ponds and fountains should be built on boundary-links; as also temples. — (248)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Tanks’ — large reservoirs of water.

‘Ponds’ — pools.

‘Water-reservoir’ — wells and the like.

‘Fountains’ — plots of ground from which small quantities of water trickle out.

‘Temples’ — houses for the worshipping of Yakṣas and other demi-gods.

All these are such marks as are publicly visible; and cannot be easily obliterated; specially as the destroying of these entails a great sin; and further, since all men desiring to fetch water, and to visit the deity in the temple, are constantly on the spot, the boundary-line becomes well known to witnesses. — (248)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 202), which adds the following notes: — ‘Taḍāga’, large water-reservoirs, — ‘vāpī’, smaller tanks, — ‘udapāna’ wells, — ‘prasravaṇa’, water-streams other than rivers.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151), where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Udapāna’, well, — ‘vāpī’, long ponds with stone-walls, — ‘prasravaṇa’, springs and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 93).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.249

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

उपछन्नानि चान्यानि सीमालिङ्गानि कारयेत् ।
सीमाज्ञाने नृणां वीक्ष्य नित्यं लोके विपर्ययम् ॥२४९॥

upacannāni cānyāni sīmāliṅgāni kārayet |
sīmājñāne nṛṇāṃ vīkṣya nityaṃ loke viparyayam ||249||

He shall also set up hidden boundary-marks, — seeing that in the world there are constant trespasses, due to the ignorance of boundaries among men. — (249)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Other hidden marks’ — such as dry cowdung and the like. These the king shall set up when he is planning out new villages.

In this manner, the boundary is never obliterated; otherwise outward marks might become obliterated by some cultivator ploughing the plot. — (249)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151), where Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes ‘Upacchannāni,’ almost hidden, — ‘nityam’, at all times, — ‘viparyayam’, mistake, — this indicates the reasons for establishing other boundary marks.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 203), which explains ‘Upacchannāni’ as hidden, — and ‘anyāni’ as standing for ‘stones’ and other things mentioned in the following verses; — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 93).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.250

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

अश्मनोऽस्थीनि गोवालांस्तुषान् भस्म कपालिकाः ।
करीषमिष्टकाऽङ्गारां शर्करा वालुकास्तथा ?? ॥२५०॥

aśmano'sthīni govālāṃstuṣān bhasma kapālikāḥ |
karīṣamiṣṭakā'ṅgārāṃ śarkarā vālukāstathā ?? ||250||

As also, stones, bones, cow’s hair, chaff, ashes, potsherds, dry cow dung, bricks, cinders, pebbles, and sand. — (250)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Karīṣa’ — dry cowdung.

‘Cinders’ — pieces of wood half-burnt.

‘Stones’ and ‘pebbles’ — hardened pieces of clay. ‘Potsherds’ — pieces of broken jars. — (250)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 203), which adds the following notes: — ‘Kāpālikā’ is karparā, tiles, — ‘aṅgāra’, extinguished cinders, known as ‘kokila,’ coal, — ‘śarkarā’ is small pieces of broken earthenware.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151); — and in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 93).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.251

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

यानि चैवम्प्रकाराणि कालाद् भूमिर्न भक्षयेत् ।
तानि सन्धिषु सीमायामप्रकाशानि कारयेत् ॥२५१॥

yāni caivamprakārāṇi kālād bhūmirna bhakṣayet |
tāni sandhiṣu sīmāyāmaprakāśāni kārayet ||251||

Other such-like things which the earth may not eat up in time, — these he shall secretly set up on junctions of boundaries. — (251)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The ‘thicket’ and other things have been mentioned only by way of illustration; and not for the purpose of excluding other things; since such trees as the Khadira, the Sāra, the Kālāñjana and so forth, — as also things similar to the ‘pebble’ — are also used.

The text adds what is meant by ‘such-like’ — ‘which the earth may not eat up in time.’ ‘Eating-up’ is used figuratively, for corroding. Just as what has been eaten up cannot be differentiated from other things, so also what has become obliterated by the corrosion of the earth. — (251)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“According to Kullūka, who relies on a passage of Bṛhaspati, these objects are to be placed in jars.” (Buhler.)

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2-151), whereon Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Yāni’ other things similar to those just mentioned, — ‘sīmāyām’, on the boundary that has got to be marked, — ‘sandhi’, meeting point of the boundaries.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 203), which adds the following notes: — ‘Evamprakārāṇi,’ such as pebbles and so forth; — and in ‘Vivādacintāmaṇi’ (p. 93).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.245-251)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.245.

VERSE 8.252

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

एतैर्लिङ्गैर्नयेत् सीमां राजा विवदमानयोः ।
पूर्वभुक्त्या च सततमुदकस्यागमेन च ॥२५२॥

etairliṅgairnayet sīmāṃ rājā vivadamānayoḥ |
pūrvabhuktyā ca satatamudakasyāgamena ca ||252||

By these signs shall the king determine the boundary between two contending parties; as also by long-continued possession and by flowing streams of water. — (252)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When there is a dispute between two persons, inhabitants of two villages, the boundary is ascertained by means of the above-mentioned marks.

‘Long-continued possession’; — i.e, possession whose beginning cannot be traced, and not only ‘possession’ for three generations; the validity of the latter having been rejected above, Under verse 119; and also because the boundary of a village being public property, it is quite possible for encroachments being ignored for three generations. Some people read verse 149 without the mention of ‘boundary’; according to these, the validity of ‘possession’ as a proof is established in all eases; and yet it has had to be reiterated here, because, in view of the enumeration of the proofs of boundary, it might he thought that ‘possession’ is not a proof at all.

“What is the stream of water that is mentioned as an indication of the boundary?”

Just as in the case of new settlements, other various boundary-marks are set up, in the same manner, a flowing water-canal also should be built.

Or, the meaning may be that when a stream of water divides two villages, if, in one part of the village; that stream of water is found to be recognised, as the boundary, and there is dispute in another part, — in this case, the stream should be accepted as the indicative of the true boundary in the latter case also. Or, this may be taken as referring to a very large village; the sense being that when a village is located on one side of a river, it cannot he open to any inhabitant of the other bank to assert that he has his lands in the village on the opposite side also. Or, the meaning may be that even when a certain part of a village has been cut off by a running stream, that same stream shall continue to serve as the boundary between the two villages, — provided that the portion cut off is a small one. — (252)

VERSE CCLIII

If, even on the inspection of the marks, there should be a doubt, the settlement of the dispute regarding boundaries shall be entirely dependent upon witnesses. — (253)

Bhāṣya.

“How can there be a doubt, when the marks are there?”

If some one were to come and secretly remove the hidden marks to another place, this would give rise to uncertainty. And as for the open public marks — in the shape of the Nyagrodha and other trees, — it is not that these trees are to be found on boundaries only; as a matter of fact, they grow in other places also. It is for these reasons that the said marks are not always reliable, and hence doubts are likely to arise.

In a case where there is no possibility of such invalidating circumstances, the marks themselves are sufficient proof.

‘Dependent upon witnesses’ — i.e., due to witnesses. The settlement, ascertainment, is such as has the witnesses alone for its basis. The meaning of the verse is that in cases where the marks are doubtful, or where there are no marks at all, the dispute regarding boundaries can be settled only by oral testimony. — (253).

VERSE CCLIV

Witnesses regarding boundaries shall be questioned in regard to the boundary-marks, in the presence of an assembly of villagers and also of the two contending parties. — (254)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2. 151), which adds the following explanation: — ‘By means of these marks, visible and invisible, as indicated by his ministers and others, the king should determine the boundary for those quarrelling over it.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 204), which adds the following notes: — ‘Satatam upabhuktyā’, by long unbroken possession — ‘he should determine’, ‘nayet’; — ‘udakasyāgamaḥ’ is flowing current of water; — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 93); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (110b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 139b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

Nārada (11.6, 11, 27). — ‘When a piece of land has been carried off by a stream, or abandoned by the owner, or when the boundry-marks have become obliterated, they shall fix the boundary according to inferences drawn from an inspection of the spot, and according to the traces of possession. Should there be no persons conversant with the true state of tilings, and no boundary-marks, then the King himself shall fix the boundary between the two estates as he thinks host. A field which has been held by three generations in succession, and a house which has been inherited from an ancestor, cannot be estranged from its legitimate owner by force of possession, except when the King wills it so.’

Bṛhaspati (19.14, 23, 24). — ‘Those are witnesses in a suit of this kind who know the title of acquisition, the size, the duration of possession, the name and the characteristic features of the land in question. When land is taken from a person enjoying it without legitimate title or ownership, and given to a worthier person, the latter shall not he deprived of it. A house, tank, shop or the like having been used by a man since the time of its foundation, must not he taken away from him, nor diminished or altered.’

Kātyāyana (Vivādaratnākara, p. 205). — ‘Possession is to be taken into consideration in the matter of deciding boundary-disputes; but only while there are witnesses deposing to the possession; and witnesses are of two kinds — those named in documents and those not so named.’

VERSE 8.253

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

यदि स्ंशय एव स्यात्लिङ्गानामपि दर्शने ।
साक्षिप्रत्यय एव स्यात् सीमावादविनिर्णयः ॥२५३॥

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров