The Dynasties of the Kanarese Districts of the Bombay Presidency from the Earliest Historical Times to the Musalman Conquest c8.s14.34.3

c8.s14.34.3

The reason for the use of it in these cases is not apparent.—It occurs sometimes in connection with the wives of paramount sovereigns; for instance, in the case, of Lakshmâdêvî, one of the queens of Vikramâditya VI. (Ind. Ant. Vol. X. p. 186, text lines 9, 10).—And it also occurs in the case of Yuvarâjas (see, for instance, page 149 below, note 10, in the case of Jayasiṃha III.); and in the case of sons of paramount sovereigns, who without being formally appointed Yuvarâjas, were administering portions of the kingdom (for instance, in the case of Vishṇuvardhana-Vijayâditya, son of Sômêśvara I.; (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 136; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 19).—The only instances that I have been able to trace, of the use of the whole expression, including râjyaṃ-gêyu, in connection with any feudatory or official who was not a Mahâmaṇḍalêśvara, are in the cases of the Mahâpradhâna, Antaḥpura-vergade, and Daṇḍanyaka Kêśimayya, an officer of the Kaḷachurya king Âhavamalla, who was thus ruling the Banavâsi province in A.D. 1181 (P. S. and O.-C. Insers. No. 191; Mysore Inscriptions, p. 138), and of the Daṇḍanyaka Armaṭivâḷa, a minister of Vira-Baḷḷâḷa II., who was thus ruling at Sâtarûr in A.D. 1195 (Inscriptions in the Mysore District, Part I., No. TN. 31); the record applies the same expression to also Vira-Baḷḷâḷa himself).