Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity (Based on the Arthashastra of Kautilya), Vol. I c14.s2.6

c14.s2.6

as follows—‘Transfers of landed property are effected by six formalities: by consent of fellow-villagers, kinsmen, neighbours and co-parceners, and by gift of gold and water.’ This text indicates clearly the existence in the early period of the Hindu law of a feeling that a transfer of landed property is not valid unless the neighbours, fellow-villagers and others who are but remotely concerned with it should have given their consent to its being effected. These persons might therefore be supposed, perhaps, to have been invested with a right of pre-emption. Whatever notions may have been prevalent on this subject in the early period of the Hindu law, this much is clear, that the compilers of those commentaries and digests of law on which the modern law is based did not approve of any sort of pre-emption. Thus the Mitâksharâ, in dealing with the above text, deprives it entirely of such legal significance as may have once belonged to it. The consent of fellow-villagers, according to the Mitâksharâ, is required for the publicity of the transaction merely; but the contract is not invalid without their consent. The consent of neighbours tends to obviate future disputes concerning boundaries. The consent of kinsmen and co-parceners is indispensable when they are united in interest with the vendor. If they are separate from him, their consent is useful because it may obviate any future doubt as to whether they are separate or united, but the want of their consent does not invalidate the transaction. This interpretation of the Mitâksharâ may be viewed as an instance of the way in which the Indian commentators used to dispose of obsolete laws. At the same time, it shows clearly that anything approaching to pre-emption was entirely foreign to the ideas of such an eminent authority as Vijñânesvara, the author of the Mitâksharâ.”¹