Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1, 70. The term ‘documents’ in this section seems to relate principally to the well-known land grants which have been found in many I, 75. DEBTS ; DOCUMENTS. 59 excellent eye (as it were), the affairs of this whole world would not take their proper course. 71. Writing is an excellent eye (as it were), because it solves all doubts which may have arisen in regard to place, time, profit, matter, quantity, or stipulated period. 72. He who, having received a chattel in a certain place, tries to deny the fact, is liable to be confronted with witnesses and convicted, difficult as it may be to prove his guilt. 73. A document is subject to many blemishes ; witnesses are neither exempt from old age nor from death ; possession, which has been continually held, is the only sure mode of proof, as it is not connected with any material object (liable to decay). 74. Thus have these three modes of proof been declared, by means of which a creditor may recover an outstanding debt, which has not been paid to him and called into doubt (by the debtor). 75. A document is valid at all times; witnesses (may give valid evidence) as long as they live; possession acquires legal validity through the lapse of a certain period. This is a legal maxim. parts of India. YAghavalkya II, 22; Vishnu VI, 23; Vasishéha XVI, ro. 75. Witnesses can give evidence while they live only, whereas a document which has been carefully preserved, remains evidence even after the death of the creditor, debtor, and witnesses, and is capable of substantiating a claim raised by the son, grandson, greatgrandson, or more remote descendant of the original owner. On the other hand, even after a lapse of time, i.e. when four or five generations have passed away, and an immeasurable period has elapsed, a creditor may recover his loan by dint of uninterrupted possession. ‘This is a legal maxim,’ i.e. this is the relative value of the divers kinds of proof. A. 60 NARADA. T, 76. 76. Of the three modes of proof here enumerated in order, each previous one is superior to the one named after it; but possession is the most decisive of all. *77. Though a document be in existence and witnesses living, that is no (true) property of which possession is not actually held. This is specially true as regards immovables. * 78. If aman is foolish enough to allow his goods to be enjoyed by strangers in his own eyesight, they shall belong to the possessor, even in the presence and during the lifetime of the rightful owner. *79. Whatever the owner looking on quietly suffers to be enjoyed by strangers for ten years,
2* 78. If aman is foolish enough to allow his goods to be enjoyed by strangers in his own eyesight, they shall belong to the possessor, even in the presence and during the lifetime of the rightful owner. *79. Whatever the owner looking on quietly suffers to be enjoyed by strangers for ten years, 76. The apparent contradiction between the first and second parts of this paragraph is thus removed by A.: ‘Possession of immovables without a title does not create proprietary right, as stated in par. 84. Therefore, the possessor of landed property becomes its lawful owner, if his right or title is established by witnesses, but not otherwise. Thus far possession is more important than witnesses. In the same way documents with a title are superior to witnesses, and possession with a title is superior to witnesses, documents, and ordeals.’ 77. This paragraph is intended to show the weakness of proof by witnesses or documents, where it is not accompanied by possession. Generally speaking, any of the three kinds of proof is invalid, where it is not accompanied by one of the other kinds. A. YAgfiavalkya II, 27; Manu VIII, 200. 78. If a man suffers his movable or immovable property to be enjoyed by another, the latter will become its lawful owner after the lapse of a long period, no matter whether it has been bestowed on him through affection, or forcibly seized by him, or abandoned by its previous owner. A. 79. Where, however, the owner, though unable to recover his property, owing to special reasons, proffers his claim to it every day, or every month, or every year, it is not lost to him, even after the lapse of a longer period than ten years. A. Identical with . Manu VIII, 147. T, 82. DEBTS; POSSESSION. 61 though he is present, that cannot be recovered by him. ; * 80. If he is neither an idiot nor a minor, and the enjoyment takes place before his eyes, his right to it is extinct by law, and the possessor is allowed to keep it. ; *81. A pledge; a boundary; the property of a child; an open deposit, an U panidhi deposit; women; and what belongs to the king or to a learned Brahman, none (of these descriptions of property) is lost (to the owner) by adverse possession. 82. Pledges and the rest, excepting the property of a woman and of the king, are however lost to the owner if they have been enjoyed in his presence for twenty years. . 80. ‘If he is not an idiot,’ nor afflicted by a chronic or agonising disease, nor dumb, blind, or deaf. A. Identical with Manu VIII, 148.
3. 80. ‘If he is not an idiot,’ nor afflicted by a chronic or agonising disease, nor dumb, blind, or deaf. A. Identical with Manu VIII, 148. 81. ‘The property of children’ is not lost, though it has been enjoyed for a long time by their guardian. ‘An Upanidhi deposit,’ i.e. a valuable article which has been delivered under cover to another person. ‘A woman,’ one who has been delivered to a stranger as a deposit, and enjoyed by him. ‘The property of a king,’ i.e. land. ‘The property of a learned Brahman,’ i.e. cows. A. Kullfika, in commenting on the identical verse of Manu, refers the term ‘woman’ to ‘female slaves,’ &c. The rules laid down in pars. 79-81, which recur literally in the code of Manu, seem to belong to an older order of ideas than those contained in pars. 84 foll. It may be presumed that the harsh law under which adverse possession of ten years’ standing was constituted a source of proprietary right, was mitigated at a subsequent period, and has been inserted here as a sort of historical reminiscence only. According to Brthaspati, thirty years is the ordinary period of prescription. Identical with Manu VIII, 149; Vasish‘ha XVI, 18. 82. In this paragraph, as in the preceding one, the term ‘a king’s property’ is referred to landed property by A. The correctness of this interpretation seems questionable. 62 NARADA. 1, 83. * 83. The property of a woman and of a king is never lost (to the owner), should it even have been enjoyed for hundreds of years without a title (by strangers). 84. Where there is enjoyment, but no title of any sort, there a title is required in order to produce proprietary right. Possession is not sufficient to create proprietary right in that case. *85. A clear title having been produced, possession acquires validity. Possession without a clear title does not make evidence (of ownership). *86. He who can only plead possession, without being able to adduce any title, has to be considered as a thief, in consequence of his pleading such illegitimate possession. *87. He who enjoys without a title for ever so many hundred years, the ruler of the land should inflict on that sinful man the punishment ordained for a thief. * 88. If a man holds the property of a stranger without a title, it is not legitimate enjoyment. However, after the death of the occupant, it may be enjoyed legitimately by his descendants. * 80. In cases falling within the memory of man, 88. While the possessor is alive, the property which he is enjoying without a title cannot become his. The owner may claim it at any time. When, however, the possessor dies, unmolested by the owner, the property continues to be enjoyed by his heirs. Therefore, the owner should not fail to assert his own right. A.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1, 70. The term ‘documents’ in this section seems to relate principally to the well-known land grants which have been found in many I, 75. DEBTS ; DOCUMENTS. 59 excellent eye (as it were), the affairs of this whole world would not take their proper course. 71. Writing is an excellent eye (as it were), because it solves all doubts which may have arisen in regard to place, time, profit, matter, quantity, or stipulated period. 72. He who, having received a chattel in a certain place, tries to deny the fact, is liable to be confronted with witnesses and convicted, difficult as it may be to prove his guilt. 73. A document is subject to many blemishes ; witnesses are neither exempt from old age nor from death ; possession, which has been continually held, is the only sure mode of proof, as it is not connected with any material object (liable to decay). 74. Thus have these three modes of proof been declared, by means of which a creditor may recover an outstanding debt, which has not been paid to him and called into doubt (by the debtor). 75. A document is valid at all times; witnesses (may give valid evidence) as long as they live; possession acquires legal validity through the lapse of a certain period. This is a legal maxim. parts of India. YAghavalkya II, 22; Vishnu VI, 23; Vasishéha XVI, ro. 75. Witnesses can give evidence while they live only, whereas a document which has been carefully preserved, remains evidence even after the death of the creditor, debtor, and witnesses, and is capable of substantiating a claim raised by the son, grandson, greatgrandson, or more remote descendant of the original owner. On the other hand, even after a lapse of time, i.e. when four or five generations have passed away, and an immeasurable period has elapsed, a creditor may recover his loan by dint of uninterrupted possession. ‘This is a legal maxim,’ i.e. this is the relative value of the divers kinds of proof. A. 60 NARADA. T, 76. 76. Of the three modes of proof here enumerated in order, each previous one is superior to the one named after it; but possession is the most decisive of all. *77. Though a document be in existence and witnesses living, that is no (true) property of which possession is not actually held. This is specially true as regards immovables. * 78. If aman is foolish enough to allow his goods to be enjoyed by strangers in his own eyesight, they shall belong to the possessor, even in the presence and during the lifetime of the rightful owner. *79. Whatever the owner looking on quietly suffers to be enjoyed by strangers for ten years,
2* 78. If aman is foolish enough to allow his goods to be enjoyed by strangers in his own eyesight, they shall belong to the possessor, even in the presence and during the lifetime of the rightful owner. *79. Whatever the owner looking on quietly suffers to be enjoyed by strangers for ten years, 76. The apparent contradiction between the first and second parts of this paragraph is thus removed by A.: ‘Possession of immovables without a title does not create proprietary right, as stated in par. 84. Therefore, the possessor of landed property becomes its lawful owner, if his right or title is established by witnesses, but not otherwise. Thus far possession is more important than witnesses. In the same way documents with a title are superior to witnesses, and possession with a title is superior to witnesses, documents, and ordeals.’ 77. This paragraph is intended to show the weakness of proof by witnesses or documents, where it is not accompanied by possession. Generally speaking, any of the three kinds of proof is invalid, where it is not accompanied by one of the other kinds. A. YAgfiavalkya II, 27; Manu VIII, 200. 78. If a man suffers his movable or immovable property to be enjoyed by another, the latter will become its lawful owner after the lapse of a long period, no matter whether it has been bestowed on him through affection, or forcibly seized by him, or abandoned by its previous owner. A. 79. Where, however, the owner, though unable to recover his property, owing to special reasons, proffers his claim to it every day, or every month, or every year, it is not lost to him, even after the lapse of a longer period than ten years. A. Identical with . Manu VIII, 147. T, 82. DEBTS; POSSESSION. 61 though he is present, that cannot be recovered by him. ; * 80. If he is neither an idiot nor a minor, and the enjoyment takes place before his eyes, his right to it is extinct by law, and the possessor is allowed to keep it. ; *81. A pledge; a boundary; the property of a child; an open deposit, an U panidhi deposit; women; and what belongs to the king or to a learned Brahman, none (of these descriptions of property) is lost (to the owner) by adverse possession. 82. Pledges and the rest, excepting the property of a woman and of the king, are however lost to the owner if they have been enjoyed in his presence for twenty years. . 80. ‘If he is not an idiot,’ nor afflicted by a chronic or agonising disease, nor dumb, blind, or deaf. A. Identical with Manu VIII, 148.
3. 80. ‘If he is not an idiot,’ nor afflicted by a chronic or agonising disease, nor dumb, blind, or deaf. A. Identical with Manu VIII, 148. 81. ‘The property of children’ is not lost, though it has been enjoyed for a long time by their guardian. ‘An Upanidhi deposit,’ i.e. a valuable article which has been delivered under cover to another person. ‘A woman,’ one who has been delivered to a stranger as a deposit, and enjoyed by him. ‘The property of a king,’ i.e. land. ‘The property of a learned Brahman,’ i.e. cows. A. Kullfika, in commenting on the identical verse of Manu, refers the term ‘woman’ to ‘female slaves,’ &c. The rules laid down in pars. 79-81, which recur literally in the code of Manu, seem to belong to an older order of ideas than those contained in pars. 84 foll. It may be presumed that the harsh law under which adverse possession of ten years’ standing was constituted a source of proprietary right, was mitigated at a subsequent period, and has been inserted here as a sort of historical reminiscence only. According to Brthaspati, thirty years is the ordinary period of prescription. Identical with Manu VIII, 149; Vasish‘ha XVI, 18. 82. In this paragraph, as in the preceding one, the term ‘a king’s property’ is referred to landed property by A. The correctness of this interpretation seems questionable. 62 NARADA. 1, 83. * 83. The property of a woman and of a king is never lost (to the owner), should it even have been enjoyed for hundreds of years without a title (by strangers). 84. Where there is enjoyment, but no title of any sort, there a title is required in order to produce proprietary right. Possession is not sufficient to create proprietary right in that case. *85. A clear title having been produced, possession acquires validity. Possession without a clear title does not make evidence (of ownership). *86. He who can only plead possession, without being able to adduce any title, has to be considered as a thief, in consequence of his pleading such illegitimate possession. *87. He who enjoys without a title for ever so many hundred years, the ruler of the land should inflict on that sinful man the punishment ordained for a thief. * 88. If a man holds the property of a stranger without a title, it is not legitimate enjoyment. However, after the death of the occupant, it may be enjoyed legitimately by his descendants. * 80. In cases falling within the memory of man, 88. While the possessor is alive, the property which he is enjoying without a title cannot become his. The owner may claim it at any time. When, however, the possessor dies, unmolested by the owner, the property continues to be enjoyed by his heirs. Therefore, the owner should not fail to assert his own right. A.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.