The Colas c29.15

c29.15

The main types of eleemosynary tenure were three: the *brahmadēya*, the *dēvadāna* and the *śālābhōga*. The two former were sometimes combined in the same village, a *dēvadāna brahmadēya* village.³⁶ The *dēvadāna* differs from *tiruviḍaiyāṭṭam*³⁷ and *tirunāmattuk-kāṇi*, the two latter terms being applied evidently to lands held in absolute ownership by the temple, like any other land-owner.³⁸ These tenures were created generally by purchase of land from previous owners and occupants, followed by a ceremonial gift in set form, the gift formula often giving detailed expression to the rights and privileges, and the obligations, if any, conveyed with the grant; more rarely, it was found possible especially for the king and the village assembly to utilise unassigned common land for such gifts. When land already owned and cultivated formed the subject of gift after purchase, the question was how to deal with the occupancy rights of the actual cultivators (*kuḍi*) of the soil. Closely allied was the question of the rights of *kārāṇmai* and *mīykāṭci* (or *miyāṭci*) terms clearly corresponding to cultivator's and landlord's rights respectively. As the landlord might himself be the actual cultivator, the class of occupant cultivators was sometimes distinguished by the name *kīḻ-kārāṇmai-uḍaiya-kuḍigaḷ*, i.e. the occupants with subordinate cultivation rights.³⁹ Several inscriptions recording these gifts contain statements of the manner in which these questions were dealt with, such as *kuḍi-nīkkik-kārāṇmai-mīykāṭci*⁴⁰ or *kuḍi-nīngāk-kāraṇmai*.⁴¹ It is curious to note that this conception of occupancy rights was sometimes applied even to movable property; an inscription of A.D. 1006 from Tiruvaiyāṟu records that a herd of sheep was taken charge of by a person who undertook to maintain two lamps in the temple on condition that the sheep were treated as *kuḍi-nīkkā-ccāvā-mūvā-ppērāḍu*,⁴² full-grown ewes that neither die nor grow old and are held in fixed tenancy. One other subject for specific consideration on the occasion of such gifts of land to Brahmins, temples and feeding houses, was that of taxes and dues to be paid on the land after the date of the gift. Often these lands were made *iṟaiyili* either by total remission by the taxing authorities, central or local or both, or by the *iṟai* being secured by a lump sum payment made in advance as *iṟai-kāval*. In the absence of a clear statement to some such effect, the lands were liable to the usual taxes.