History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.228.12

v4.c63.228.12

a text of Hārīta states 'what has been enjoyed by three prior ancestors without any title whatever cannot be recovered back (from the present holder, who is 4th), since it has descended successively through three generations'. These two are relied upon by those who hold long possession as leading to an inference of title (*tripuruṣa-bhuktivādinaḥ*, as Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 148 calls them). These like the Vyavahāra-tattva and Vivādacandra⁴⁶⁵ who rely solely on possession boldly say that long possession even originating in wrong leads to ownership. Medhātithi says 'there can be no memory of the origin of title when there has been possession for hundreds of years and (if title had to be proved for the origin of such possession) a king may resume villages enjoyed by ancient temples, brāhmaṇas and maṭhas; therefore ancient possession is evidence of ownership because it makes it extremely probable that the ancient possession originated in gift or the like'. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 27 (which is *svatvavādi*) refers to all the three views, refutes the first two and accepts the view of loss of profits. It does not literally interpret the texts of Hārīta and Nārada quoted above, takes them to be over-statements and intended to convey that continuous possession for over three generations cannot be interfered with even if there is no clear proof of the origin of title.