History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.253.1

v4.c63.253.1

Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 310 v. 11) and Kāt. 335 (both quoted by Aparārka p. 637, V. P. p. 166) state that what is enjoyed by a man's agnates and cognates and his own people does not pass to their ownership by their mere possession; one should regard possession (as leading to ownership) in cases other than these. Pitāmaha states that possession by a stranger is powerful, but possession by members of one's own family has certainly not the same force⁴⁷¹. This appears to adumbrate the principle of modern law that possession by one co-owner or one tenant-in-common is ordinarily the possession of all co-owners and the mere fact that the profits of a property have been enjoyed by only one co-heir or tenant-in-common for many years does not by itself amount to the ouster of the other tenants-in-common⁴⁷². It is stated in Gaut. XII. 35 that property which is enjoyed for a long time by a śrotriya, an ascetic or a king's officer is not lost to the owner by that enjoyment, since the owner may have thought that he would reap long-enduring spiritual merit by the first two enjoying this property (such as a vacant house) or that he might be prevented from asserting his right from fear (of the royal official). Compare Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 311 v. 12).⁴⁷³ Manu VIII. 149 (= Nār. IV. 81 and Vas. 16. 18), Yāj. II. 25, Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 312 v. 21), Kāt. (330) state the following exceptions to the rule of loss by long possession;