The Rashtrakutas and their Times c17.s3.52

c17.s3.52

The village councils of our period had considerable jurisdiction over the village disputes.⁷⁷ Sulaiman, a contemporary writer, informs us that there existed popular courts in India in addition to king's courts.⁷⁸ Their criminal jurisdiction was no doubt confined to petty cases of assaults, etc., but their civil jurisdiction was unlimited. They could try and decide cases worth any big amount. King's courts did not entertain any cases at first instance; it was only when the parties felt dissatisfied with the decisions of the village councils that they could appeal to the king or his courts. Somadeva, a contemporary writer of the Deccan, expressly declares that such was the case in his times.⁷⁹ If the parties to a dispute happened to be members of a guild the case was referred to the village council, only if the guild executive could not settle the matter amicably. The judgments of the early Mahomedan and Maratha period are found to be signed by several village elders including not only Patels and Kulkarnis but also goldsmiths, carpenters, oilmen and even untouchables like Mahars and Mangs. It is, therefore, clear that the power to decide the village cases was theoretically invested in the whole body of the village elders or the Mahājanas. In practice, however, the actual examination of the parties, their witnesses etc., seems to have been delegated to a small sub-committee, the members of which used to receive a certain honorarium from the fees that were charged to the disputants. The trials were usually held in the village temple, the holy precincts of which could effectively stifle during our period any promptings to dishonesty in the mind of parties and witnesses. The judicial powers of the Panchayats were not due to prevailing anarchy; it was the considered policy of the state not to entertain any suits except by way of appeal from the decisions of the village Panchayats. The decrees of the village court were enforced by the central government, just as the decrees of the present day British courts are carried out by the British executive. In the 15th century in Maharashtra, parties dissatisfied with the decisions of the village court had the right of appeal to Taluka Panchayats; it is not improbable that the councils of Vishaya and Rāṣṭramahattaras as well may have enjoyed in our period appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the village councils. The judicial powers of Bhogapatis, Vishayapatis, and Rāṣṭrapatis are nowhere referred to in our records; very probably they enjoyed no such powers. In the king's court too the judge was assisted by Sabhyas or jurors whose duty, according to Somadeva, a contemporary writer of our period, was to find out facts and decide the cases impartially.⁸⁰ The procedure at the court of the capital considerably resembled the modern trial by jury.