History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.869

v4.c63.869

that a single witness however confident he might be (or however reliable) should not take upon himself to point out and settle the boundary, since this (boundary) dispute being a very important (difficult) matter, its decision should rest with many. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 152) explains that this prohibition holds good only if the single witness is one not accepted by both sides as reliable. But Nār. (XIV. 10) and Bṛ. (S. B. E.⁹⁰⁶ 33 p. 352 verse 11) hold that where a single witness accepted by both sides has to settle the boundary (in the absence of more witnesses and in the absence of reliable patent or concealed signs) he should do so after placing a clod of earth on his head, after being dressed in red robes and wearing red flowers and after observing a fast. If it was a śūdra who was to trace or lay down a boundary Viśvarūpa⁹⁰⁷ on Yāj. II. 156 quotes a prose passage of Bṛhaspati that he was to be decked in red pieces of cloth, his face was to be smeared with ashes from a cemetery, a mark was to be made on his chest with five fingers dipped in the blood of a goat and the entrails of the sacrificed goat were to be tied round his neck and he was to hold a clod of earth in the right hand. All this was to impress upon him the gravity of the work and the necessity of doing his best impartially. If no knowing witness or no patent or concealed signs are available the king has himself to settle the boundary between the two villages at his own discretion (Yāj. II. 153, Nār. XIV. 11, Manu VIII. 265). He may divide the land between the two villages equally and construct new marks of boundaries, but if the disputed land will be of greater benefit to one village than to the other the king may assign the whole of the disputed land to the former. Manu VIII. 245 prescribes that when there is a boundary dispute between two villages the king should decide it in the month of Jyeṣṭha when the embankment (marks) become quite clear (owing to water being dried up in summer). The decision made by the witnesses or neighbours became final only after the lapse of three weeks if no calamity (from act of God or king) befell the witnesses (Kāt. 751).⁹⁰⁸ Manu prescribes (VIII. 261) that the boundary settled by witnesses should be fixed by the king (or recorded in a document containing the names of witnesses). An ancient instance of the fixing of boundaries by two feudatory chiefs is recorded in the Bhumara stone Pillar inscription of the Parivrājaka Mahārāja Hastin and Mahārāja Śarvanātha, who erected a pillar at Ambloda to show the boundary between their territories about 510 A. D. (vide Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions No. 24 p. 110). Vide also E. I. vol. 24 pp. 32-34 for inscriptional evidence about the carrying out of all the details laid down in dharmaśāstra works on the settlement of boundaries. Manu VIII, 263, Yāj. II. 153, Nār. XIV. 7 prescribe the middle amercement for each one of the *sāmantas* that falsely settle the boundaries, while Manu (VIII. 257) and Nār. XIV. 8 prescribe the first amercement only for other witnesses such as members of corporations and elderly villagers. If through friendship, greed or fear the witnesses who know the facts do not come forward to settle the boundary they are each to be fined in the highest amercement (Kāt.⁹⁰⁹ 750).