History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.117.3

v4.c63.117.3

281 verse 28) ordains³⁷⁵ that the kulas, śreṇis and gaṇas that are well-known to the king may decide the disputes of litigants except those that fall under *sāhasa* and that it was only the king who could carry out the order for fines or corporal punishments, i. e. the arbitration courts could only decide disputes not involving *sāhasa* and they had no power to execute their decrees about fines and corporal punishments, but that their decisions had to be filed with the king, who, if he did not disapprove of them, put them into execution. Pitāmaha³⁷⁶ appears to mention three classes of State courts, while Yāj. and Nār. refer only to two (viz. that of the chief justice and that of the king himself): 'a dispute decided in a village may be taken to the city and one examined in the city (court) to the king; a dispute decided by the king whether correctly or incorrectly cannot be reviewed.' It is distinctly provided by Bṛ.³⁷⁷ (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 282 verse 31) that the sabhyas are superior to the *kulas* and the rest, the chief justice is superior to sabhyas and the king is superior to all. Pitāmaha377a provides that when a litigant is not satisfied with the decision given by a kula tribunal or the others, he can carry the matter by way of appeal to the king. Besides these courts it appears from Kauṭilya that the village headman (*grāmika* or *grāmakūṭa*) exercised certain summary powers such as driving out of the village a thief or an adulterer (III.