Vedic Index of Names and Subjects v1.c3.s18.236

v1.c3.s18.236

⁵ The same question has been raised as to the origin of English or Teutonic property in land generally. Against any idea even of family ownership in a strict sense of the word, see Fustel de Coulanges, *Recherches sur quelques Problèmes d’Histoire*, 322 et seq.; Ashley, in Fustel de Coulanges, *Origin of Property in Land*, xvi-xxi; Pollock and Maitland, *History of English Law*, 2, 237 et seq. The older view, which accepted family and communal ownership, represented in different forms by Maine (*Village Communities in the East and West*), Stubbs, Green, and others, is defended in a new form by Vinogradoff, *Villanage in England*. See also Keith, *Journal of the African Society*, 6, 201 et seq. Jolly, *Recht und Sitte*, 93-96, does not accept the communal ownership of land, but, *ibid.*, 80, is inclined to believe in the joint ownership of a family. He admits that this is inconsistent with the strict rule of *patria potestas*, which still exists in Bengal; Baden Powell, *Village Communities in India*, 133 et seq., doubts the existence in early India of such a *patria potestas*. But the facts seem clearly to show that there was such a power, and that the father owned the property. His sons, as they grew up, came to claim the property, and he might have to divide it; hence the idea naturally developed that every child on birth had a legal share in the property. No doubt also from the first the right to part with land was one which grown-up sons and the rest of the community could object to, once the village had acquired a fixed existence. This would account adequately for the later system. *Cf.* also pp. 100, n. 19; 336, n. 7, and Rājanya.