History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.216.3

v4.c63.216.3

134) states the striking⁴⁴⁷ rule that when a document bears the royal seal, that document is presumed to be authentic, even though all the three (viz. the debtor, the witnesses and the scribe) are dead. This shows that documents bearing the king's seal or that of royal officers were regarded as prima facie genuine and this rule is analogous to the provisions in sec. 79 of the Indian Evidence Act and sections 59-60 of the Indian Registration Act. That even copperplate grants were sometimes forged is clear from the reference in the Madhuban plate of Emperor Harṣa (E. I. VII. p. 155, 158), and from the Tārāchaṇḍī Rock Inscription (in Bihar) of Mahānāyaka Pratāpadhavaladeva (in E. I. XX. Appendix No. 340) of *saṁvat* 1225 which declares that a certain copperplate purporting to be issued by Vijayacandra of Kanoj was forged. Vide Fleet in I. A. vol. 30 pp. 201–223 for many forged grants. Verses (variously attributed to Kāt. or Bṛhaspati by the digests) state that when a loan (recorded in a document) has not been expressly claimed by the creditor able to claim from a debtor who is able to pay off and who is at hand, the document loses its validity because a suspicion arises that the debt has been paid off and that a document executed more than thirty years before which has never been seen (by any body) nor read out (by the creditor to any body) does not attain validity even though the witnesses on it are living. Nār. IV. 141 is very similar to this last. Kāt. 298–299, 301 (q.