History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.859
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.859
- Language
- English
v4.c63.859.1
This is called *kṣetrajavivāda*⁸⁹⁷ (disputes relating to fields) by Nārada XIV. 1, who defines it as 'dispute with regard to land in which questions about dikes or embankments, the boundaries of fields, ploughed land and fallow land have to be decided.' Nārada's idea appears to be that the word 'sīmāvivāda' in Manu is only illustrative and is a compendious way of mentioning disputes about land in general. According to Kāt. (732) there are six causes⁸⁹⁸ of land disputes viz. claiming more land, claim that a person is entitled to less than he possesses, claim to a share, denial of a share, seizing possession when previously there was none, boundary. In all these cases boundaries have directly or indirectly to be settled and therefore all these are included under the topic of *sīmāvivāda*. A boundary dispute may relate to the boundaries of a district (janapada), a village, a field and a house. Boundaries, acc. to Nār., may be of five kinds.⁸⁹⁹ They are described as follows: *dhvajinī* is what is indicated by trees which are like a flagstaff. Manu (VIII. 246-247) prescribes that trees such as aśvattha, the silk cotton, śāla, tāla (palmyra palm), that have milky juice (like udumbara) should be planted to indicate boundaries and also bamboo clumps, bushes, reeds &c. A *matsyinī* (lit. having fish) boundary is provided by rivers flowing naturally and full of fish and tortoises or by tanks and reservoirs of water (Manu VIII. 248).
v4.c63.859.2
A *naidhānī* boundary is one indicated by concealed signs (just as nidhāna i. e. treasure is concealed in the earth), such as pots filled with chaff, coal, bricks, bones and similar things that the earth does not corrode and are buried inside the earth. Manu (VIII. 250-251) enumerates those objects that should be buried in the earth, which would serve to indicate the boundaries of a village or field and which are therefore called concealed (*upacchanna*) by him. A *bhayavarjitā* (free from danger) boundary is settled by the agreement of the parties. The fifth kind is the one that is laid down by order of the king. Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 351 verse 2) prescribes⁹⁰⁰ that at the time of founding a village definite boundaries should be erected or constructed by means of visible or patent (*prakāśa*) and concealed (*upāṁśu* or *upacchanna*) signs and the Sm. C. II. 228 explains that a row of big stones should be employed to indicate the boundary. Bṛhaspati (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 351 verses 3-7) states what patent and concealed boundary marks should be and requires elderly persons to point them out to youths and children who in their turn when old are to point out the boundaries to other youths and in this way traditional knowledge of boundaries may be kept up. Manu (VIII.
v4.c63.859.3
252-253) states that in disputes boundaries should be settled in accordance with the visible and concealed signs described above, by reliance on long former enjoyment and by the constant flow of water and that if there be doubt even after observing the signs then the dispute has to be decided on the evidence of witnesses. Witnesses could either depose to the marks of boundaries or to the boundaries themselves. Those who could not point out the marks but were to define the boundaries themselves were to follow a certain procedure. Manu VIII. 254 states that the witnesses should be asked about the marks of boundaries in the presence of the litigating parties and groups (or families) of the villagers. The witnesses on being asked were to trace, point out and settle the boundary unanimously, being clad in red garments, wearing red chaplets and being exhorted to depose truly by their spiritual merit⁹⁰¹ and carrying clods of earth on their heads, by reference to mounds or depressions, coals, bones and chaff (buried underground, in a vessel ), embankments, anthills, platforms of stones or bricks (Manu VIII. 255, 256, Yāj. II. 151, Nār. XIV. 4-6 ). Vas. 16. 13, Kauṭ. III. 9, Yāj. II. 150, Manu VIII. 258, 260, Nār. (XIV.
v4.c63.859.4
2-3) prescribe that on failure of witnesses of the adjoining villages, neighbours (sāmanta),⁹⁰² old men, cowherds husbandmen who plough the fields near the one in dispute, hunters, fowlers, fishermen, snake catchers and foresters should settle the disputed boundary in the presence of the king. The Mit. on Yāj.⁹⁰³ II 153 quotes Kāt. (743-745, 51) to show that witnesses were divided into *sāmanta*, *maula*, *vṛddha* and *uddhṛta*, each preceding group being superior to the succeeding. The Mit. further says that the neighbours as witnesses are to be arranged in the form of the layers of the petals of a lotus viz. the nearest ones (*saṁsaktaka*) are those most preferred, (but if this group has faults) then a second but a more removed group and then a third group still more remote may be examined. Śaṅkha-Likhita and Vas.⁹⁰⁴ 16. 13-15 prescribe that in boundary disputes the decision depends on neighbours, in the case of conflict of witnesses on documents and then on the old men in the town or village and the guilds. Yāj. II. 152 and Manu VIII. 258 require that the neighbours who are to settle the boundary should be four, eight or ten (even in number) and inhabitants of the same village (if possible). Bṛ. (S. B. E. 33 p. 352 verse 14) requires that the witnesses⁹⁰⁵ should know the source of title (to the disputed land), the measurement (in *nivartanas*.
v4.c63.859.5
*daṇḍas* &c.), the length of enjoyment or possession, the names of persons (in possession) and the characteristic geography or lie of the land. The general rule was (as stated by Nār. XIV. 9)