History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.228.7

v4.c63.228.7

Mere possession is not enumerated by sages like Gautama among the means of acquiring ownership. As the Sarasvatīvilāsa (p. 124) puts it, long uninterrupted possession only leads to an inference that it originated in title acquired by sale, gift or the like i. e. there arises a presumption of lawful origin⁴⁵⁸. Therefore in order to enable a man to rely on possession alone as proof of ownership it must extend uninterruptedly over 100 years (acc. to the Mit.). The Smṛticandrikā⁴⁵⁹ (II. p. 72) accepts this meaning, only requiring 105 years' possession instead of 100 years'. Acc. to a smṛti quoted by it each generation means 35 years and so when Nārada requires possession for three generations 105 years are meant (acc. to Sm. C.). Viṣṇu Dh. S. V. 187, Kāt. (327) also hold that continuous enjoyment for three generations makes the fourth generation owner of the land. Kāt. (321 q. by Mit. on Yāj. II. 27, Aparārka p. 636) states 'in cases falling within the memory of man it is desirable that possession must be accompanied with title (in order to be proof of ownership as to land); but in cases beyond the memory of man possession extending over three generations in succession (is independent proof of ownership), since there is no certainty that there was no title (to begin with)'. Vide also Bṛ. (in S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 313 verses 26-28). 'Three generations' is a vague expression.