Social and Political Life in the Vijayanagara Empire (A.D. 1346 – A.D. 1646) v1.c13.s3.28

v1.c13.s3.28

An inscription dated only in the cyclic year Raktākshi, Kārttigai, 27th day, but assigned to the times of Virūpāksha II, son of Harihara II, gives us the details of the settlement of the question of the right (kāni) of worship in the Āragaḷūr temple, Salem district. The judgment was given by Tirumalli Nāyaka, who was evidently an officer placed over the district or deputed for the purpose. The dispute was between the sthānikas or temple managers themselves of the Kāmēśvara temple at Āragaḷūr. The judgment of Tirumalli Nāyaka contains, among other things, the following: "(1) A has been enjoying for a long time the privilege of worshipping all the thirty days of the month in the temple, while actually only fifteen days belong to him by right, and fifteen days belong to another person named B; (2) the privilege of B thus enjoyed by A without proper authority, requires settlement; (3) in support of the latter part of the statement made in (1), there are records in the temple to prove that fifteen days of B (now abandoned by him and enjoyed by A) have under orders been counted as 'unclaimed' (iṟaṅgal); (4) of this privilege of fifteen days so declared unclaimed, you have sold (on your own responsibility) seven and a half days to a third person C and given him a sale-deed; (5) by so doing you have deprived the acquired right of A enjoyed by him for the last eight or ten generations; (6) at this stage, the nāṭṭār (i.e., the representatives of the nāḍu) appeared to have volunteered to settle the question of enjoyment—A being found issueless(?)—and to have called the parties to present themselves before them together with A; (7) you,—the managers—were also required (under my orders) to be present on the occasion, to hear the case, and to carry out the decision arrived at by the nāṭṭār and to have, in the meantime, during this period of hearing (by the nāṭṭār), the worship of the temple performed by outsiders, on payment; (8) A having then appealed to me while I happened to be present at Āragaḷūr, to hear the case personally and give a just decision, I and the nāṭṭār together advised the parties to put their case before the mahājanas and issued an order to this effect; (9) in obedience to our order the mahājanas of the agrahāra of Kuḷattūr, Ālambalam, Saḍaiyanpaṭṭu and Maṭṭiyākuṟichchi met together, heard both sides and decided that although A may have been the hereditary holder of only fifteen days of the privilege, it was not fair to sell a part of the disputed portion there to an outsider like C while the right to purchase (in virtue of long enjoyment) primarily rested in A; (10) accordingly, therefore, to this decision of the mahājanas we order that A must continue to enjoy the full thirty days as before and that the sale-deed you have given to C should be cancelled".¹