History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.228.3

v4.c63.228.3

86-87) declares that one who pleads mere possession and no title at all should be considered a thief on account of his putting forward the deceptive plea of possession (which even a thief can assert) and that the king should punish as a thief one who enjoys a property even for hundreds of years without title. All that this last verse means is that the person in possession must prove legal origin or such a long possession that there is no possibility of an inference that the possession of his ancestor originated is wrong. Delivery of possession was the principal mode of transferring ownership in ancient times in almost all systems of jurisprudence and so possession was given great weight as evidence of ownership.⁴⁵⁴ The Mit. on Yāj. II. 27 makes the position clear. In the case of a gift or sale there must be the cessation of the ownership of the transferor and the arising of the ownership of the transferee. This last occurs only when the transferee accepts the property and not otherwise. Acceptance is mental, vocal and physical (i. e. the acceptor makes a resolve to accept, says that he accepts and takes physical possession). These three may exist in the case of such movable articles as gold, clothes &c. But in the case of a field physical acceptance is not possible except by enjoying the fruits or profits thereof. Therefore in order to make a gift or sale perfect there must be some slight possession at least. In the absence of such possession mere title is weak.