Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.890

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.890

Language
English

v4.c63.890

A *setu* (watercourse) is said by Nār. (XIV. 18) to be of two kinds, viz. that which is dug (*kheya*) into the soil in order to drain off excessive water and that which is constructed (*bandhya*) as an embankment to prevent water from flowing away. Yāj. II. 156 and Nār. XIV. 17 provide that a *setu* made by the owner of one field in the neighbouring field should not be forbidden by the owner of that field, if the loss of soil it causes (to the latter) is small as compared with the great benefit that it may confer. Nār. (XIV. 20–21) and Yāj. II. 157 prescribe that one should make a dike or watercourse on another's land with the permission of that man or with the permission of the king as otherwise he cannot reap the benefit thereof. Kāt. (762–63) provides a similar rule about the repairs to a house or garden or tank made by a stranger without the owner's or the king's permission. It is stated by Nār. (XIV. 23–25) that when the owner of a field is unable (to cultivate it) or is dead or is not heard of, if a stranger cultivates the field without objection from any body, the stranger shall enjoy the produce of the field, that if the owner (or his son) returns while the field is being tilled by a stranger, he can get his field back on repayment to the stranger of all the money expended on making the land (ready for crops). If the owner is unable to return the expenses, the stranger may retain ⅞th of the produce every year for eight years giving ⅛th to the owner every year and should hand over the field to the owner when the 8th year arrives. Yāj. II. 158 and Vyāsa provide that if a person takes a field from the owner on rent for cultivation, but gives up the cultivation after slightly ploughing it and does not employ someone else to complete the cultivation, then he should be made to pay the produce that would have been recovered from the field if properly cultivated and also should be fined and the field may be taken from him and given to another tenant⁹²¹.

Linked texts (4)