with the Commentary of Medhatithi 235 страница

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 241 из 350Следующая ⇒

yadi sṃśaya eva syātliṅgānāmapi darśane |
sākṣipratyaya eva syāt sīmāvādavinirṇayaḥ ||253||

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)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

“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).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 205), which adds the following notes: — ‘Grameyaka’ are ‘village-residents,’ — their ‘kula’ means ‘crowd’, — vivādinaḥ’, ‘of the disputants’, is to be construed with ‘samakṣam’, ‘in the presence of.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151) to the effect that the witnesses and Sāmantas should be put on oath and then questioned regarding the boundary, in the presence of corporations, guilds and so forth. Balambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Grameyakāḥ’ are the residents of the villages, — their ‘kula’ are crowds; or ‘kula’ may be taken as standing for guilds and corporations &c., — ‘Sīmāni,’ ‘in regard to the boundary.’

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

Nārada (11.2, 3, 7, 8-10, 12). — ‘In all disputes regarding landed property or boundaries, the decision rests with the neighbours, the inhabitants of the same town or village, the members of the same community, and the senior inhabitants of the district; — as also with those who live outside on the outskirts of the village, and who live by the tilling of fields situated in those parts, and with herdsmen, bird-catchers, hunters and other foresters. Should the neighbours speak falsely, when called upon to decide a question of this sort, they shall all be punished, one by one, by the King, — each having to pay the fine of the middlemost amercement. The corporation, the senior inhabitants of the district and the rest also shall receive the punishment; they shall have to pay the fine of the first degree, if they make false statements. The boundary should not be fixed by any one man singlehanded, even though he be a reliable person; this business should be entrusted to a plurality of persons, because it is an affair of importance. Should a single man undertake to fix the boundary, he should do so after having kept a fast, in a collected frame of mind, wearing a garland of red flowers and a red cloak, having strewn earth on his head. According to this rule, let all disputes he decided in regard to houses, gardens, water-reservoirs, sanctuaries and the rest, as also the space intermediate between two villages.’

Bṛhaspati (19.8-15). — ‘In disputes regarding a house or field, the decision rests with the neighbours, as well as with the inhabitants of that town or village, or with members of the same community and the elders of the district; — likewise with husbandmen, artisans, servants, cowherds, hunters, gleaners, root-diggers, fishermen, kinsmen, criminals and robbers. After having been adjured by imprecations befitting their station, they shall determine the boundary, and shall indicate the marks deposited underground, as evidence. In default of witnesses and signs, even a single person, agreeable to both parties may fix the boundary, wearing a garland of red flowers and a red cloak, putting earth on his head, adhering to truth, and having kept a fast. Neighbours born in the district, though they may be living abroad, are natives of the place, and as such may he consulted in such disputes, — What they, as honest and impartial men, should declare, shall be held to be decisive; — thus justice will not be violated. 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 under dispute. The same rule holds good in all suits concerning immovable property. If the statements of the deponents do not agree, they shall be made to pay the fine of the highest degree.’

Yājñavalkya (2.152-154). — ‘An even number of neighbours — four, eight or ten — shall determine the boundary, wearing red garlands and clothes and placing earth upon their heads. If they speak falsely, they should each be punished by the King with the fine of the middle degree. In the absence of persons cognisant with the boundary, and of boundary-marks, the King himself shall determine the boundary. This same rule applies to disputes relating to gardens, temples, villages, drinking fountains, houses and parks; as also to streams and drains of rain-water.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 759, et seq.). — ‘In the absence of witnesses, neighbours and senior inhabitants and natives of the district shall he consulted. In the absence of neighbours, disputes between lìelds, and also between towns and villages, should he determined by reference to even those who are not neighbours. When the immediate neighbours are found to be tainted with partiality, the next neighbours shall ho consulted; — so on and on; always discarding those interested and partial, the King shall determine the boundary in consultation with other natives of the place. If a single person, accepted by both parties, should seek to determine the boundary, he should proceed to do it, clad in red clothes and placing earth on his head. If even a number of men who have been brought together fail to determine the boundary, cither through fear or through greed, they should be made to pay the fine of the highest degree. If they speak without knowledge, they should be punished; and if, on reconsideration of the boundary, they be found to have deposed falsely, they should he made to pay the fine of the highest degree.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.13-15). — ‘In a dispute about a house or a field, reliance may he placed on the deposition of neighbours. If the statements of the neighbours disagree, documents may be taken as proof. If conflicting documents are produced, reliance may he placed upon the statements of aged inhabitants of the village or town, and on those of guilds and corporations.’

VERSE 8.254

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

ग्रामीयककुलानां च समक्षं सीम्नि साक्षिणः ।
प्रष्टव्याः सीमलिङ्गानि तयोश्चैव विवादिनोः ॥२५४॥

grāmīyakakulānāṃ ca samakṣaṃ sīmni sākṣiṇaḥ |
praṣṭavyāḥ sīmaliṅgāni tayoścaiva vivādinoḥ ||254||

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)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Though a village contains innumerable inhabitants, yet, as a rule, only two men — one from each of the two villages — become parties to a boundary-dispute; and it is in the presence of these two men, as also in that of ‘an assembly of villagers,’ — i.e., a concourse of the inhabitants of the two villages, — that ‘witnesses regarding boundaries should be questioned.’ At the time that witnesses are being examined, all the villagers should he present as interested in the case; and it is not open to either of the two persons to say — ‘the dispute is between us two persons, why should these men remain here?’

Or, the meaning may be, that, when a few very old inhabitants of the neighbouring villages have been called as witnesses, it is necessary that other inhabitants also of those villages should he present; since the latter would have heard of the exact boundaries from the older people, so that, if examined in their presence, the witnesses would not lie.

‘Boundary-marks.’ — When there are marks in support of the contention of both parties, the decision is to be arrived at with the help of the deposition of witnesses. And in cases where there are no marks at all, the witnesses are questioned regarding the boundary itself. — (254)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 205), which adds the following notes: — ‘Grameyaka’ are ‘village-residents,’ — their ‘kula’ means ‘crowd’, — vivādinaḥ’, ‘of the disputants’, is to be construed with ‘samakṣam’, ‘in the presence of.’

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.151) to the effect that the witnesses and Sāmantas should be put on oath and then questioned regarding the boundary, in the presence of corporations, guilds and so forth. Balambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Grameyakāḥ’ are the residents of the villages, — their ‘kula’ are crowds; or ‘kula’ may be taken as standing for guilds and corporations &c., — ‘Sīmāni,’ ‘in regard to the boundary.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 759); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (p. 111a), which explains ‘grameyaka’ as ‘inhabitant of the village’; — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 141a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.255

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

ते पृष्तास्तु यथा ब्रूयुः समस्ताः सीम्नि निश्चयम् ।
निबध्नीयात् तथा सीमां सर्वांस्तांश्चैव नामतः ॥२५५॥

te pṛṣtāstu yathā brūyuḥ samastāḥ sīmni niścayam |
nibadhnīyāt tathā sīmāṃ sarvāṃstāṃścaiva nāmataḥ ||255||

The opinion that, on being questioned, they unanimously declare in regard to the boundary, — according to that he shall lay down the boundary, recording also the names of them all. — (255)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the witnesses declare an opinion ‘unanimously’ — all together; and there is no difference of opinion among them.

In the case of a difference of opinion, the opinion of a majority of them should be accepted.

‘Lay down’ — write down upon a piece of paper; — as also the names of the witnesses. — (255).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 759); — in Mitākṣarā (p. 152), to the effect that when the witnesses thus questioned unanimously declare the boundary point, the king shall, for fear of the settlement being forgotten, record this settlement in writing, setting forth therein all the boundary marks shown by them as also the names of the witnesses.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 205); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (111a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 141a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.256

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

शिरोभिस्ते गृहीत्वोर्वीं स्रग्विणो रक्तवाससः ।
सुकृतैः शापिताः स्वैः स्वैर्नयेयुस्ते समञ्जसम् ॥२५६॥

śirobhiste gṛhītvorvīṃ sragviṇo raktavāsasaḥ |
sukṛtaiḥ śāpitāḥ svaiḥ svairnayeyuste samañjasam ||256||

Placing earth upon their heads, wearing garlands and red clothes, and being sworn by their respective meritorious deeds, they shall decide honestly. — (256)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

On their heads the witnesses shall place ‘earth’ — i.e., clods of earth.

‘Wearing garlands’ — wearing chaplets as far as possible of red flowers.

‘Wearing red clothes’ — dressed in red. Though the root ‘rañji’ (from which the term ‘rakta’ is derived) denotes only colouring, i.e., imparting some colour to what is white, yet it is generally used in the sense of red; as we find in such expressions as ‘the rakta cow’ (where the red cow is meant).

All this is meant to strike terror in the minds of the witnesses; and also people dressed in red are supposed to be clean.

In swearing, each man should be made to pronounce the words — ‘whatever merit I may have acquired by my deeds, may all that become futile!’

‘Respective’ — ‘svaiḥ svaiḥ’; — the repetition is meant to convey the idea that each of them should mention his ‘meritorious deeds,’ — such as the giving away of a daughter, bathing in sacred places, and so forth.

‘Samañjasam,’ ‘honestly,’ is an adverb. The meaning is that they shall decide the case in a way that may he in accordance with truth, straightforward and righteous. The term ‘samañjasa’ is synonymous with ‘honest’ and ‘clear’; and as a ‘truthful act’ is always ‘clear’ the text has used the term ‘samañjasam’ — (256).

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (p. 152), to the effect that the witnesses, the Sāmantas and others should indicate the boundary after being put on oath.

It adds that the plural number in ‘nayeyuḥ’ indicates that the boundary cannot be determined on the basis of only two witnesses; the admission of one being permitted by Nārada.

Bālambhaṭṭī adds the following notes: — ‘Svaiḥ svaiḥ’ means ‘by the deeds of the caste to which each of them belongs’, — ‘urvīm’, a piece of earth, — ‘tām’ (which is its reading for ‘tam’) boundary, — ‘Samañjasam’ is an adverb modifying the verb ‘nayeyuḥ.’

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 762); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (p. 111b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 141a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.257

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

यथोक्तेन नयन्तस्ते पूयन्ते सत्यसाक्षिणः ।
विपरीतं नयन्तस्तु दाप्याः स्युर्द्विशतं दमम् ॥२५७॥

yathoktena nayantaste pūyante satyasākṣiṇaḥ |
viparītaṃ nayantastu dāpyāḥ syurdviśataṃ damam ||257||

If they decide in the right manner, they, being truthful witnesses, become purified; but if they decide contrariwise, they should be made to pay a fine of two hundred. — (257)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If, on reference to other proofs and to other more reliable witnesses, it is found that the witnesses have not deposed truthfully, each of them shall he fined two hundred; because each of them is a ‘witness’ and that penalty has been prescribed for the ‘witness’; and all the witnesses do not depose collectively.

‘Truthful witnesses’; — i.e., witnesses who lay a great stress upon veracity.

‘Become purified,’; — i.e., do not incur the guilt of telling a lie.

‘In the right manner’; — i.e., in accordance with facts. This phrase cannot be taken as referring to anything that has been said (which is what the term ‘ukta’ actually denotes); all that is meant is that what they declare is corroborated by other proofs. Or, it may mean ‘in accordance with what has been declared in the scriptures,’ in the way of truthfulness. It has been declared in the scriptures that ‘one shall speak the truth’; hence the phrase ‘yathoktena’ means in a truthful manner. — (257)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.153), as laying down the penalty for witnesses lying in connection with boundaries; — in Vivādaratnākara (p. 211), which explains ‘Satyasākṣinaḥ’ as ‘those persons who depose truthfully to the boundary,’ — and ‘dviśatam’ as ‘two hundred paṇas’; — in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 97); — in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 95); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (112a); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 141a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.258

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

साक्ष्यभावे तु चत्वारो ग्रामाः सामन्तवासिनः ।
सीमाविनिर्णयं कुर्युः प्रयता राजसंनिधौ ॥२५८॥

sākṣyabhāve tu catvāro grāmāḥ sāmantavāsinaḥ |
sīmāvinirṇayaṃ kuryuḥ prayatā rājasaṃnidhau ||258||

In the absence of witnesses four honest inhabitants of neighbouring villages shall make the determination of the boundary, in the presence of the king. — (258)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Inhabitants of neighbouring villages should he questioned, and decision should be arrived at with the help of what they say.

‘Honest,’ — i.e., possessing the qualifications of the ‘witness’ as laid down in the texts.

‘In the presence of the king’ — This has been added for the purpose of filling up the metre; as neighbours never volunteer to decide disputes, in the manner of kings. — (258)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

“Men from the four surrounding villages are meant, as Kullūka suggests. The correctness of this opinion is proved by the fact that the land grants usually mention the four boundaries of the villages given away.” — Buhler.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.152), which remarks that neighbours are to be called in only in the absence of regular witnesses. Bālambhaṭṭī adds the note that the number ‘four’ stands for any number from four upwards, — and that the epithet ‘prayatāḥ’ precludes the calling of wicked men.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 760); — and in Vivādaratnākara (p. 206), which adds the following notes: — ‘Grāmāḥ,’ villagers, — ‘simāntavāsinaḥ,’ persons living near (the disputed boundary), — ‘vinirṇayam kuryuḥ,’ should determine the boundary on the basis of the tradition current among them. It explains ‘sāmanta’ as ‘persons living near the disputed boundary.’

Aparārka (p. 759) has explained the term ‘sāmanta’ as ‘people seen near the spot,’ ‘samantataḥ ye upalakṣyante.’ Hence Medhātithi’s reading ‘sāmantavāsinaḥ’ is to be explained as ‘grāmasya samantāt vāsinaḥ,’ ‘people living near about the village.’

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (111a).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.259

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

सामन्तानामभावे तु मौलानां सीम्नि साक्षिणाम् ।
इमानप्यनुयुञ्जीत पुरुषान् वनगोचरान् ॥२५९॥

sāmantānāmabhāve tu maulānāṃ sīmni sākṣiṇām |
imānapyanuyuñjīta puruṣān vanagocarān ||259||

In the absence of such original inhabitants of neighbouring villages as could be witnesses in regard to the boundary, the king may examine these (following) frequenters of forests also. — (259)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Original inhabitants’ — The epithet has been added with a view to indicate their importance. Those persons who were living in the village at the time of its foundation, and who are co-eval with it, are called ‘original’; such inhabitants of the neighbouring villages remain on the spot constantly. There would be ‘absence’ of these, on account of their having become dispersed, for some reason or the other.

What is the remedy, if these are not available?

In that case the king shall question ‘these’ — the persons going to be mentioned in the next verse.

Or, ‘maulāḥ’ may be taken to mean ‘experienced.’ — ‘Sāmantāḥ’ as explained above. And the meaning may he — ‘In the absence of experienced people, ordinary neighbours may he regarded as reliable authority, and in the absence of these latter, the frequenters of forests should he carefully examined.’ — (259)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 209), which explains ‘maulāḥ’ as ‘persons who have lived in the village ever since it came into existence,’ — and ‘anuyuñjīta’ as ‘should question’; — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyvahāra, p. 272); — in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 790); — in Kṛtyakalpataru (111b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 140b), which says that the foresters and others are to be asked only when there are no such persons available as are cultivators of lands lying near the disputed boundary.

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.260

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

व्याधांशाकुनिकान् गोपान् कैवर्तान् मूलखानकान् ।
व्यालग्राहानुञ्छवृत्तीनन्यांश्च वनचारिणः ॥२६०॥

vyādhāṃśākunikān gopān kaivartān mūlakhānakān |
vyālagrāhānuñchavṛttīnanyāṃśca vanacāriṇaḥ ||260||

Hunters, Fowlers, Cowherds, Fishermen, Root-diggers, Snake-catchers, Gleaners and other Foresters. — (260)

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

These persons wander about in the forests surrounding villages, without entering the villages themselves, and might know the exact boundaries. Passing by that way, they might have seen some persons cultivating the fields lying within the disputed area, and might have asked them — ‘what is this village, in which you are cultivating fields?’ In this manner, it is quite possible for them to have acquired the required experience.

‘Hunters’; — those who live by hunting; these also come into contact with villages, when pursuing game that has escaped from forests.

Similarly ‘fowlers,’ who live by bird-catching, roam about all the villages, in search of birds.

‘Cowherds’ roam about in search of particular kinds of fodder for their cattle.

‘Fishermen,’ ‘Dāśas,’ — those who live by digging tanks, etc., wander about in search of work.

‘Boot-diggers,’ — those who dig up the roots of thick grasses and other plants.

‘Snake-catchers,’ — those who catch serpents, by way of livelihood. These men are likely to visit several places, and thus come into contact with the inhabitants of several villages.

‘Gleaners’; — very poor people who, after wandering about several villages, earn just enough to serve as food for the day.

‘And others’ — who go about searching fruits, flowers, fuel and such things. — (260)

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha:

‘Vanācāriṇaḥ’ — ‘Those who roam about forests in search of flowers, fruits and fuel’ (Medhātithi); — ‘śabaras and other foresters’ (Nārāyaṇa).

Medhātithi does not read ‘śataśaḥ’ as Hopkins says.

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.152), on which Bālambhaṭṭī has the following notes: — ‘Vyādhān,’ fowlers, — ‘śākunikān,’ those who live by killing birds, — ‘kaivartān,’ those who live by digging tanks etc., — ‘mūlakhātakān,’ those living by digging up the roots of trees etc., — ‘vyālagrahān,’ serpent-catchers, — ‘uñchavṛttinaḥ’ those who live by gleaning corn, — ‘vanagocarān,’ those who roam about in forests in search of flowers, fruits and such things.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 209); — in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 272), which adds that ‘anyān’ includes persons whose business it is to dig up and raise boundary marks; — in Kṛtyakalpataru (111b); — and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 140b).

Comparative notes by various authors:

(verses 8.253-264)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.253.

VERSE 8.261

Section XL - Disputes regarding Boundaries

Познавательные статьи:



Как правильно слушать собеседника

Типичные ошибки при выполнении бросков в баскетболе

Принятие христианства на Руси и его значение

Средства массовой информации США