Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c8.63

c8.63

A record at Āvaḍaiyārkōyil in the Tanjore district shows how the village assemblies discharged their judicial functions. According to it the assembly of that village made a gift of two pieces of land as tirunāmattukkāṇi to the temple of Śōla Pāṇḍya Vinnaṅar Emberumāṇār at Tirupperundurai, which had been confiscated by them from a certain Aṇḍāṇ Piḷḷai of Tirupputtūr on account of some default or wrong on his part.³⁷ When the village assemblies decayed, the āyagārs as a body took their place and discharged their functions, and thus enjoyed some judicial powers. Thus when a dispute arose between one Annaḍāna Gauḍa and Ciga Mudhaiya regarding the role of gauḍika in a particular village in the Anantapur district, the case was presented before the Dharmāsana (village court), consisting of the chief men of the village and the twelve village servants (āyagār). They decided in favour of Ciga Mudhaiya. Their decision was accepted by Sarājayaparāja, the chief of Harati, and the gauḍika was conferred on Mudhaiya. The procedure adopted in this case shows that though the village officers were allowed to decide cases, it was the superior officer of the locality that had to give effect to the decision.³⁸ An undated inscription at Koṭṭaiyūr in the Pudukkōṭṭai State gives some details about the settlement of a dispute among certain castes. The epigraph is defaced, but we can learn from it that it records the settlement of a dispute between certain sects of the potters of Koṭṭaiyūr in Kāṇaṇāḍu alias Virudarājabhayaṅkara Vaḷanāḍu; the settlement was arrived at in an assembly which in addition to the blood relations of the disputants contained the residents of the district, the (temple) trustees, and the artisans of the place. It was a representative gathering.³⁹ That the temple authorities dispensed justice at times is indicated by an inscription at Neyvāśal also in the Pudukkōṭṭai State. It records that they sat in judgment over a case in which a temple jewel had been stolen away by a particular person, and punishment was imposed upon him. The temple authorities also ratified the sale of the lands of the culprit for paying off the price of the stolen jewel.⁴⁰