Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Rashtrakutas and their Times c18.s2.t2: (4, iii) Treasure-trove and the property of heirless persons

The Rāṣṭrakūṭas and their Times c18.s2.t2

Language
English

(4, iii) Treasure-trove and the property of heirless persons

c18.s2.t2.1

This is the last item to be considered under this head. Our copper plate grants usually transfer to the donees the right to the treasure-troves that may be discovered in the villages or lands granted. The expression used in this connection is *nidhinikshepasametaḥ* (109) ‘along with the right to treasures and buried wealth’; there is no ambiguity whatsoever about its meaning. Most of the Smriti writers (110) also state that the king was entitled to a fairly large share of the treasure-troves, except when the discoverer was a Brahmana.

c18.s2.t2.2

Gautama, (111) Vasiṣṭha, (112) Viṣṇu (113) and Manu (114) lay down that the heirless property of the non-Brahmanas was to escheat to the state. The interpretation of the term ‘heirless’ seems to have differed with different times. It is true that the widow was not recognised as an heir for a long time as shown already; but the Dharmaśāstras, which deny her that right, concede it to other collaterals, like the brothers, cousins or uncles. A person who dies without a male issue but leaves behind him some collaterals cannot, therefore, be regarded as dying without an heir. It would, however, appear that some states in the ancient period regarded such persons as dying without heirs in order to claim their property for themselves. Some of the Jātaka stories disclose such a state of affairs, (115) and the 6th act of the S'ākuntala provides us with a most convincing case. There we find that the king stops the intended confiscation of the property of a dead merchant in order to see whether one of the widows, who was enceinte at the time of the tragedy, would give birth to a son. A similar case is mentioned in the Mohaparājaya of Yashaḥpāla who flourished in Gujarat in the 12th century. Kumārapāla is there grieved to learn that his subjects should be under the justifiable impression that their king always desired that rich persons should die without leaving behind any sons. (116) The king consequently renounces this right after his conversion, and the Kumārapālapratibodha claims that the magnanimity of permitting the weeping widow to keep her property was not shown in the past even by kings like Raghu and Nahusha. (117) The case in the Deccan, however, was different. The tax on persons dying without a son, which has been already referred to, proves that only a fraction of their property passed to the state as a kind of succession duty. Managoli Inscription, dated 1178 A.D., further makes it absolutely clear that the property of persons dying without a male issue did not escheat to the crown, as was the case in contemporary Gujarat. The inscription states:—

c18.s2.t2.3

¹⁰⁹ Cf. I. A., II, p. 301; XIX, p. 345 etc.

c18.s2.t2.4

¹¹⁰ *e. g.* Manu, VIII, 35-39; Yājñnavalkya, II, 34-5; Viṣṇu. IV; 1; etc.

c18.s2.t2.5

¹¹¹ XXVIII, 41-2.

c18.s2.t2.6

¹¹² XVII, 73

c18.s2.t2.7

¹¹³ XVII, 13-4.

c18.s2.t2.8

¹¹⁴ IX, 189.

c18.s2.t2.9

115. e.g., Vol. IV, pp. 485-6.
116. Cf. निष्पुत्रं म्रियमाणमाद्यमवनीपालो हहा वाञ्छति । p. 43, Act III, v. 50.
117. > न सुक्तं यत्पूर्वं रघुनहुषनाभागभरत-

c18.s2.t2.10

प्रभृत्युर्नाथैः कृतयुगकृतोत्पत्तिभिरपि ।
विसृक्चन्संतोषात्तदिह रुदतीवित्तमधुना
कुमारक्ष्मापाल त्वमसि महतां मस्तकमाणः ॥ p. 48.

c18.s2.t2.11

‘If any one should die at Manigavalli without sons, his wife, female children, divided parents, and brothers and their children.........and any kinsmen and relatives of the same Gotra, who may survive, should take possession of all his property, i. e. bipeds, quadrupeds, coins, grains, house, and field ; if none such should survive, the authorities of the village should take over the property as Dharmadeya property.’(118)

c18.s2.t2.12

It would be clear from this valuable record that the property of sonless persons did not escheat to the crown but devolved on the kinsmen in an order which is very similar to that laid down by Yājñavalkya.(119) Somadeva, a contemporary writer from Karnatak, also states that the king may take a share of the property of the widow only when in difficulty.(120) This would show that normally the property was allowed to devolve upon the widow and other near heirs. It is interesting to note that the epigraphical evidence from the Deccan confirms the tradition that the widow was recognised in that province as her husband’s heir since early times. This tradition is mentioned as early as in the Nirukta;(121) Yājñavalkya also, who recognises the widow as an heir and permits the king to inherit the property of the dead under no circumstances whatsoever, was most probably a southerner like his commentator Vijñāneśvara.

Linked texts (10)