Dr.R.Nagaswamy #CD853F The disposal of law suits-both criminal and civil- was the primary responsibility of the king in ancient India. He is the Supreme judge of his country, and is expected to hear law suits daily as a part of his duty. Two interesting epigraphs from Tamil country, dating back to 8th-9th centuries A.D. give us a glimpse into the disposal of civil suits by the king himself. Both of them relate to the early Pandya period. One is the celebrated Velvikkudi grant (1. Epigraphia Indica Vol. XVII pages 291-309.) of Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan and the other is the Dalavaypuram grant (2. T. N. Subramaniam, Transactions of the Archaeological Society - 1962, p. 55.) of Parantaka Viranarayanan. Both the copper plates have been edited earlier, but have not been analysed from the point of view of legal administration. An attempt is made in this paper to analyse the plates from this angle which throws new light on the administration of civil justice in ancient Tamil land Most of the copper plates so far found belong to the class of documents known as danapatra (gift deeds). Kinds of documents There are ten kinds of documents according to Vyasa and Prajapati (3. B. Guru Raja Rao. Ancient Hindu Judicature-1920. P.108.) They are:- 1. Upagata -- Receipts. 2. Adhipatra -- Mortgage. 3. Krayapatra -- Sale deed. 4. Sthiti patra -- Perpetual conduct. 5. Sandhipatra -- Compact. 6. Vishuddhipatra -- Purificatory deed. 7. Vibhaga patra -- Partition deed. 8. Dana patra -- Gifts. 9. Dasa patra -- Enslavement. 10. Sima vivada patra -- Settlement of boundary dispute The Pallava copper plates and the Pandya plates, excepting the two mentioned above, refer to gift of lands either to individuals or to insstitutions like temples. In all these cases the king makes the gift either himself in order to increase his merit, or at the request of others. But the Velvikkudi grant and the Dalavaypuram grant belong to a different class of royal records. In both the cases gift of lands were made by one of the ancestors of the ruler; but the lands were subsequently lost by the descendants of the donees, who appealed to the Kings directly. Having examined the cases, the Kings restored the lands to the descendants of the original donees. Thus they relate to the settlement of ownership right by the King in his capacity as a Supreme Judge. It would therefore be interesting to examine both the records in terms of ancient legal administration as reflected in the Dharma Sastras. Velvikkudi Grant The Velvikkudi grant of Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan, consists of two parts, the Sanskrit and Tamil parts (like the other copper plates) The Sanskrit portion stops with the listing of the geneaology of Parantaka. The Tamil part begins straight away with the details of the appeal that the village Velvikkudi was gifted to one Narkorran (also kniown as Korkai Kilan), by the Pandya ruler, Palyagasalai Mudukudumip peruvaludi, when he completed a Yaga (Velvi). It is said that the village was in the long possession of the donee (nidu bhukti tuyttapin) when the Kali king, named Kalabhra, who overthrew a number of rulers (Adhirajaas), deprived the donee's family, the enjoyment of the village. A descendant of the donee, whose name is given as Korkai Kilan Kamak-kani Narasingan, went to the palace of the Pandya ruler, Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan, at Kudal and shouted at the outskirts (akrodhikka). The King himself heard this appeal, called him in and enquired into the matter. The appellant told the king that after they were deprived of their enjoyment (Kadungon, Avani sulamani, Seliyan Sendan, Arikesari, Koccadayan and Rajasimhan), six Pandya rulers had passed away. "This land was given by your ancestor Mudukudimip Peruvaludi. The name of the village is Velvikkudi situated in Pakanur-kurram (territorial subdivision). This was removed by the Kalabhras", appealed Narasinghan. On hearing this, the King asked the appellant to produce evidence that this was actually in their possession. There upon the appellant showed evidence to prove his rights. The king, having satisfied himself by wxamining the evidence, ordered at the spot itself that the village gifted by his ancestor was reconfered by him as well. The copper plate then details the boundaries of the village and mentions Muvendamangalapperaraiyan as the Ajnapti of the grant. A few words used in this text are clearly legal terms employed in dharma Sastras. Nidu Bhukti In describing the village gifted, it is said that it was in their enjoyment for long, Nidu Bhukti. Bhukti enjoyment (possession) is considered an important evidence in civil suits. The disputing party, when called upon should produce valid evidence (Pramana) to prove his case. "Proof is of three kinds. 1. Human (manushika) and 2. Divine (Deivika). Human proof is furnished by a) Documents (likhita,) b) Witness (Sakshi) and c). Enjoyment (Bhukti). 2)The divine proof consists of ordeals. "Bhukti (enjoyment comes therefore foremost as a mode of proof in respect of rights to immovable property generally. As possession is an incident of ownership it is recognised as a mode of proof of ownership. Harita, describes title as the root and possession (Bhukti) as the branch of a tree. Mere possession however, is not proof of ownership. It is the legal title (Agama), such as is required by gift, purchase etc. that really confers ownership. Such a title has greater validity than mere possession in determining ownership. According to Yajnavalkya, title however perfect may be, if unaccompanied by right of possession is of no value. Possession is insisted on by Katyayana and Brhaspati also for completing the legal title deeds. But in the case of mere enjoyment from generation to generation, it is valid proof of ownership by itself though unaccompanied by proof of title. As such long possession raises the presumption of legal title. This exception apply only in cases of enjoyment for a period, lasting beyond the memory of man or man's memory. In the case of immemorial enjoyment or for over three generations, it is not possible to trace the existence or otherwise of titles as the origin of possession and therefore mere possession is recognised as a mode of proof" (1. Ibid pp. 61-63.) In the case of Velvikkudi grant, the owners have been deprived of their property for over six generations. There were two valid proofs. 1. Documents which the descendants were able to produce. In the deed it is refered to as 'Nattanin Palamaiyanatu. It probably refers to the records in the country accounts that it belonged to the family of Korkai Kilans. It is not known weather the original danapatra was lost or confiscated. In its absence the country accounts were shown as valid proof.or is it that the term nattan refers simply to land owner in this case the claimant. 2. The second evidence was the actual enjoyment for a long period (Nidu-bhukti). The use of the word "bhukti" in the Velvikkudi grant clearly indicates its legal implication. As two valid Pramanas were shown, the king had no hesitation in confering the title back on the descendants.It has been shown that the word "Bhukti" is used in legal sense of possession by the traditional law books- Dharma sastras. In describing the Pandya ruler, Parantaka, who heard the case, and confered back the gift, the following significant titles are used. Manupaman (Equal to Manu), Kantaka-nishturan(one who removes thorns in Society), and Gudha Nirnayan (one who determins the subtle truth), which are terms associated with Dharma. In the Srivaramangalam plates, the same ruler is described as 'one following the path of Manu-darsana, who extolled elders and did 'Kantaka sodhana'. "Kautilya's Artha Sastra describes two classes of courts called "Dharma-sthiya", and "Kantaka sodhana" as prevalent at that time. The Dharma-sthiya courts had jurisdiction over the administration of civil and criminal justice in respect of ordinary matter. The Kantaka-sodhana which consisted of three commissioners, seem to have exercised special jurisdiction over matters of commerce and industry and prevention of breach of peace and determination of grave offences against the state. They saw to the enforcement of contracts among artisans and to the regulation of their wages and kept constant vigilance cover the detection and prevention of heinous crimes" In the famous Uttaramerur inscription of Parantaka Chola (10th cent) 'grama-kantakas' criminals who turned against the villages are referred to. (2. Epi. Indi. Vol. XXII) The fact that Pandya Nedunjadaiyan performed "Kantaka-sodhana" himself shows that the concept was well known in Tamil country in 8th century and the king himself headed that council to hear heinous crimes against the state. However, in the Velvikkudi grant, one point namely why the appeal was not prefered, and why the descendants waited for nearly six generations is not clear. Dalavaypuram Plates The Dalavaypuram plates of Parantaka Viranarayana also refers to a dispute. In this case the gifted land was misappropriated and an appeal was made to the king. The king restored the right which is the purport of the grant. The Dalavaypuram plates also consists of two parts, the first in Sanskrit and the second in Tamil language. Unlike the Velvikkudi grant, the dispute and the decision are recorded in this case both in the Sanskrit and Tamil parts. Sanskrit portion is interesting because of its terminology. The case is briefly as follows. The Pandya ruler, Kadungon gifted a village Srimangalam as a brahmadeya to twelve Brahmins. Another Pandya ruler, whose name is not mentioned but who is said to have died at Kudalur is said to have gifted the village Somasi-kuricchi to one Kataka Somayaji who became an exclusive owner of the Brahmadeya(Eka-bhoga-Brahmadeya). But both the danapatras, (the copper plates) were lost during troubled conditions (marak-kedu). Part of this Somasik-kuricchi was subsequently seperated by a Sudra who appropriated it to himself under the new name Madhurantaka nallur. (1. Ibid pp. 8.) The Appeal So the appeal was prefered to the King. The appellant was one Narayanan Kesavan of Somasik-kurucchi, who served as a confidential officer of the Pandya. The appeal was that:- 1. The new Village Madhura-tara-nallur should be restored to Somasik-kurucchi, 2. The new Sudra occupant should be expelled from the land; and 3. The boundaries of the villages Srimangalam and Somasikkurucchi which are mixed up should be redefined and the two villages clubbed together and a copper plate charter issued confirming the grant. The king immediately agreed and ordered restoring the new village to the original village by uniting it. Neither in the Sanskrit portion nor in the Tamil portion, there is any mention of the production of evidence. The king did not ask for any evidence at all. Atleast the charter is not specific on this issue. The person Narayanan Kesavan who appealed, is refered to as a highly learned and a great scholar in political science, (Kshatramatam unarntu) and was a person of pure and high integrity (suddha sila acaran) and above all was a trustworthy officer serving the king (Visvasa Karmangatkaaya tanmaiyan.) In view of the fact that the appellant was a trustworthy person and also an officer of high integrity, the ruler should have decided the case considering him also as a sakshi. However, the land was not claimed by the appellant to himself but on behalf of the village assembly of Srimangalam and Somasikkurucchi. The king giving the order is mentioned as Manu-caritan (Famous like Manu) which is interesting. (Sah Somasikkurucchi iti khyaatah-tasya eka desa bhuh Madhurasthana sadgrama namna sudra-abhilanghita. Tam acchidya tatah purva svamibhogyam Prakalpya ca, tasyah sudrakrita akhyanavyavrkittm upapadya ca, tadekibhuta Somasik-kurucchih ekatam saha Srimangalena sampadya Suddhapustakalekhayaat gramanvaya paurastya tamrapatta pramanayoh nasadoshanirakartum tayoh ca ekatva buddhaye aikyena gramayoh kritva simanam karini-padaih tamrapatta pramananca kalpayitva diyatam. (D. Plates line 43 to 47) In this case the Officer should be considered a sakshi - witness. According to Narada, King and King's Officers could be made sakshi. Here the king's officer Narayanan kesavan is to be considered a witness, for he is described as belonging to a good family and fallower of saruta and smarta path (srauta smarta adhvagena). According to Yagnavalkya, srauta smarta kriyapara (fallowers of srauta and smarta path) satyavadi Kulinas, etc. are to be considered as witnessess. It is interesting that in the copper plate the same words as saruta smarta advaga occurs. In Case of loss of Document When the document is in another country, wrongly drafted, eaten away by ants, stolen, broken, burnt or lost, another document should be prepared. (1. Yajnya Valkya - Lekhya V. 91) When the document is lost, a new one should be prepared which is called suddhi. In the Dalavaypuram plate, the document was lost and the ownership was in dispute. So the document has to be prepared anew which is called Sandhigdha lekhya suddhi in the dharma sastra (2. Yajnya Valkya - V. 92.) In this copper plate, the same term is found used as "suddha pustaka lekhaya". Further in the D. P. Charter, the loss is called Nasa-dosha, and the Suddhi was intended to remove this defect, refered to in the copper plates as "nasa dosha nirakartum". The request in the D.P. is mentioned as "Tamra-patta-pramanam kalpayitva diyatam". Here also the technical term "pramana" is used in a legal sense. The king got it written on a copper plate- tamra-patta. In the Tamil portion of the plates the king is requested to issue a sasana. According to Narada, there are four ways of terminating a dispute(vyavahara). They are 1. Dharma-abstract justice, 2. Vyavahara-decision after contest, 3. caritra-written law and 4. Raja Sasanam-Order of the king. The command of the king which is not repugnant to sacred law or natural justice becomes the final word (1. Ancient Hindu Judicature p. 23-24.) The word used in this case is Rajasasana and the Tamil portion of the copper plates uses the same terminology and in this case the king's sasana was to be the last word. Vyavahara Nirnaya Thus it is seen, that both the Velvikkudi and the Dalavaypuram grants belong to the "vyavahara nirnaya" class of patras unlike the other copper plates. They clearly indicate that as early as eighth century A.D. the kings adopted in Tamil country the tenets of dharma sastras in deciding disputes. This would also show in the day to day purchse, pledge, and all other transactions relating to property etc. the dharma sastras were the guiding texts and this goes in accordance with the repeated assertion of the rulers that they were followers of Manu. This clearly prove that though different parts of India were ruled by different dynasties, often fighting with each other, in matters of civil and administrative justice they followed only the dharma sastras, all over the country ; which is of utmost importance for the study of cultural unity of India.