The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c21.48

c21.48

Mithilâ in north Bihâr still forms a centre of Sanskrit learning and Brâhmanic orthodoxy. Throughout the middle ages it retained its cultural autonomy and, partly, its freedom of administrative and juridical practice. Its Hindu landowners were recognised by Muslim sovereigns and suffered to stick to old ways. This state of things survived the break-up of the Muslim power and lasted until the close of the eighteenth century when the East India Company had established its sway all over the lower Gangetic valley. The date on the Sanskrit Jayapatra, as a judgment was called, is equivalent to the 10th of June, 1794 A.D. As the only available document of its kind the Jayapatra deserves notice in some detail. It comes from the village of Dharmapur which had long been held by Hindus under a Muslim imperial grant. The judgment is given and signed by Sacala Miśra who is evidently the Prāḍvivākā or chief justice referred to in the course of the document. It begins by mentioning the names of the parties and then gives the case of the plaintiff as stated in his plaint. Next the nature and substance of the defendant's answer are recapitulated. There follows a discussion as to the party on whom the burden of proof lay. The issues are determined and summarised. Next adjournments are dealt with. The plaintiff having made default, the fact that proceedings thereafter are in retrial is noted. Once the defendant objected that on principles of the Hindu law of evidence a single witness to prove a case was inadmissible The plaintiff prays for leave to resort to the mode of proof extraordinary, or non-secular, that is, by ordeal. To this the defendant objects and cites authority in support of his contention. The judge quotes and discusses legal digests and arrives at the conclusion that the ordeal was inapplicable to the case in question. The judge and Pāṣat members refuse the request preferred by the plaintiff. Ultimately, the plaintiff is adjudged to have failed in establishing the claim preferred.¹ It is possible that old Hindu judgments were written in something like this form and that something like the procedure indicated here was followed in ancient Mithilâ.