The Pandyan Kingdom from the Earliest Times to the Sixteenth Century c19.31

c19.31

A few civil disputes with the manner of their settlement are also recorded. In one case (No. 571 of 1920) there was a dispute among Bhaṭṭars connected with a temple near Kāṭṭumannārkōyil in South Arcot as to who had the right to perform the pūja in the temple, and the matter was arbitrated by the assembly with the aid of proofs produced by either party to the dispute; and it is interesting to note that one side pleaded prescription as having enjoyed the right ‘from the time of Kulōttunga Choladēva II who covered (the temple) with gold, Rājarājadēva II, Perumāḷ Tribhuvana Vīradēva, Rājarājadēva III, Avani-āḷappirandān-Kōpperunjingadēva, Perumāḷ Sundara Pāndyadēva, Perumāḷ Kulaśēkharadēva, Vīra Pāndyadēva and even up to the eleventh year of the ruling king, Perumāḷ Sundara Pāndyadēva, as a matter of course’.¹ The succession of kings who ruled in the locality appears to be very correctly mentioned here and that fixes the time of the record somewhere late in the thirteenth or early in the fourteenth century A. D. About the same period or a little later (more exactly, Śaka 1298, A.D. 1376), we hear of a long-standing dispute in twenty-four villages in the region of the modern Ran.nad district between the caste people and the pariahs in the villages, resulting at one stage in some loss of life on both sides; this dispute seems to have been settled ultimately in an amicable manner by the intercession of a certain Gāngaiyarāyan, evidently a royal official. The understanding that both sides accepted was ‘that the pariahs should beat the drum (*muraśa*) for the caste people on all occasions, good and bad, and receive in return a *padakku* of paddy and a fowl. Every resident of the *parru* who was entitled to the privilege should measure out in the harvest season, irrespective of the yield, a *kalam* and a *tūṇi* of paddy (to the pariahs) for this service.’¹ It may be noted, by the way, that in the time of a Sundara Pāṇḍya we have an instance of a lady, by name Peruṅaruṇaiyāṭṭi *alias* Dēvargaḷammai, who was counted among the *nyāyattār* (committee of justice ?) in the well-known village of Uttaranmērūr (probably modern Uttiramallur near Kāñchīpuram)²; and that ‘a record of Māravarman Kulaśēkhara (*acc.* A.D. 1268) from Kiḷaḍi in the Madura district (No. 449 of 1906) refers to the *nirvāhasabhai* (executive committee) of the village.’³