Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t2.45

Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c10.s5.t2.45

Language
English

v1.c10.s5.t2.45

Our assumption that there must have been an efficient system of land revenue administration is further proved by references like the following relating to the legislation on mortgaged lands. A subordinate official of the last Vijayanagara ruler Srīraṅga Rāya, by name Siddarāmappa Nāyaka of the Haṇḍe family, issued an order in Saka 1565 (A.D. 1643-4) that the kāpus who had held any temple or Brāhmaṇ lands on "mortgage by possession" (bhōgya-āyakam) should restore those lands to the original owners after twelve years' enjoyment, without demanding any money from them, giving them at the same time written deeds (bhōgya-patra) recording the reconveyance. The order was issued with the consent of the Reḍḍis, Karaṇams, and the other people of the place (sthala). The defaulters were to be fined by the palace (nagari) i.e., king (or chief?).¹ The late Mr. Kṛṣṇa Sāstri rightly commented thus on the above: "The legislation appears evidently to have been made as a remedy against the conveyance by the owners of these lands for long periods to the kāpus in consideration of the loans paid on such usufructuary mortgages decidedly favourable to the mortgagee".² If this was a piece of legislation of the last period of Vijayanagara history, the following is another instance of the same pertaining to the early part of their administration. A record dated Saka 1360 (A.D. 1438-39) of the times of Dēva Rāya II, which refers to Lakkaṇṇa Daṇṇāyaka, informs us that service māms were neither to be sold or mortgaged by the parties who received them, and that the lands being measured by the rod rājavibhāḍan-kōl, this document was itself to be accepted as the royal order conveying lands. (அடைப்புத் திரு முகம்). He that sold or mortgaged the land would suffer the punishment that traitors to the king and to the community, would suffer, and in addition be liable to a fine imposed by the officers of the temple treasury.³