History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.228.2

v4.c63.228.2

Vide Kāt. 317 (q. in Sm. C. II p. 73 and Par. M. III. p. 141). If property is held in one of the modes of acquiring ownership stated above and there is also possession, one's right to that property is indefeasible ( Nār. IV. 85, Bṛ. q. by Sm. C. II. p. 70, S. B. E. 33 pp. 309 and 312 v. 3 and 22 ), but possession without a clear title does not lead to (or ripen into) ownership⁴⁵¹ (with certain exceptions to be noted later on). Vyāsa and Pitāmaha⁴⁵² declare that possession in order to be valid must have five characteristics viz. it must have title behind it, must be of long standing, unbroken, free from protest (by another person) and in the presence (i. e. before the very eyes) of the opponent (q. in Mit. on Yāj. II. 27 and Aparārka p. 635). Even title, if not accompanied by some slight possession, has no strength, while title is stronger than possession not handed down hereditarily (Yāj. II. 27). Nār. IV. 85 states that possession becomes strong when backed by clear title. These passages present some difficulty and make title and possession depend on each other. Nār. IV. 77 states that even if there be a document or witnesses to support a man's title, when there is no enjoyment, particularly in the case of immovable property, there is no validity. All that is meant is that a transfer without possession though under a deed or before witnesses is risky and that title and possession lend support to each other as stated by Nār. IV. 84-86, Bṛ., Hārīta and Pitāmaha.⁴⁵³ Nār. (IV.