Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1*1o, Should a single man undertake to fix the boundary, (he must do so) after having kept a fast, in a collected frame of mind, wearing a garland of red flowers and a (red) cloak, having strewed earth on his head. *11. Should there be no persons conversant (with the true state of the question) and no boundary marks, then the king himself shall fix the boundary between the two estates, as he thinks best. 12. According to this rule let all contests be decided in regard to houses, gardens, reservoirs of water, sanctuaries and the rest, as well as the space intermediate between two villages. *13. When trees have grown on the boundary (or ridge) separating two contiguous fields, the fruits and blossoms shall be assigned to the owners of the two fields in common. g. According to the Viramitrodaya (p. 458), this prohibition in regard to the determination of the boundary by a single man, has reference to those only who are not acceptable to both parties and unacquainted with the law. to. Manu VIII, 256; Yagiavalkya II, 152. ; 11. In default of neighbours and other persons conversant with the state of the matter, and of trees and other boundary marks, the king shall fix the boundary of his own accord. He shall distribute the ground intermediate between the two villages, which has become the subject of a contest, between the two litigant parties, and fix landmarks between the two. Viramitrodaya, p. 460. Manu VIII, 265; Y4gravalkya II, 153. 158 NARADA. XT, 14. *14. When the boughs (or offshoots) of trees grown on the field of one man should take root in the field of another man, they must be known to belong by right to the owner (of that field), because they have sprung forth in another field (than the stem of the tree). *15. A cross-road, the sanctuary of a deity, a street, and a public road must not be obstructed by (a place for) ordure, a terrace, a pit, an aqueduct, the edge of a thatch (syandanik4), or the like (obstructions). 16. Should any one cause such obstruction through inadvertency or by force, the king shall impose on him a fine of the highest degree. *17, The (erection of a) dike in the middle of another man’s field is not a prohibited act, as it may be productive of considerable advantage, whereas the loss is trifling. That is to be desired as (comparative) gain where there is (a slight) loss (only). *18. There are two sorts of dikes (or watercourses), one (called kheya) which is dug into the ground, and (another called bandhya) which prevents the access of water. A kheya dike serves the purpose of irrigation, a bandhya dike serves to keep the water off. *19. No grain is (ever produced) without water ; 14. This rule seems to be intended principally for banyans and the like trees covering a large area with their offshoots. The Nepalese MS. omits vv. 13, 14, 16. 15. The term syandanik4 is variously explained as denoting either the projecting roof or the eaves of a house. 17. Yagavalkya II, 156.
2This rule seems to be intended principally for banyans and the like trees covering a large area with their offshoots. The Nepalese MS. omits vv. 13, 14, 16. 15. The term syandanik4 is variously explained as denoting either the projecting roof or the eaves of a house. 17. Yagavalkya II, 156. 18. Kheya means literally ‘what is capable of being dug,’ and bandhya ‘ what is capable of being stopped.’ What is meant by these two terms may best be seen from the next paragraph. XI, 24. BOUNDARY DISPUTES. “159 but too much water tends to spoil the grain. An inundation is as injurious (to growth) as a dearth of water. *2o. If a man were to put in repair a dike erected long ago, but decayed, without asking the permission of the owner, he shall not have (the use and) profits of it. * 21. However, after the death of the owner or of another man sprung from the same race (who has succeeded to his property), he may repair the dike, after having been authorized to do so by the king. * 22. By acting otherwise he will get into trouble, in the same way as the hunter (of the tale). The shafts of him are spent in vain who hits again and again one who has been hit already. * 23. When the owner of a field is unable (to cultivate it), or dead, or gone no one knows whither, any stranger who undertakes its cultivation unchecked (by the owner or others) shall be allowed to keep the produce. * 24. When the owner returns while the stranger ao. With the owner’s permission, any man may restore a dike, &c., which has fallen into decay. Viramitrodaya, p. 468. Yagvavalkya II, 157. Read pravréttam in the text. 21. The authority of the king is required, because, without it, the profits of the dike would have to be enjoyed by the king himself. See YAgviavalkya II, 157. a2. The tertium comparationis in this simile has to be sought in the vanity of the effort only. Manu (IX, 73) applies the same simile to seed, i.e. semen virile spent in vain on the field, i.e. wife of a stranger. 23. ‘Unable’ (to cultivate the field) through want of means. ‘A field,’ one which has become a desert. Vivadadintamasi, p. 64. 24. ‘The owner,’ or his son or other (descendant). ‘The whole expense incurred in tilling the waste,’ the cost of converting the desert into cultivated ground. Viramitrodaya, pp. 469, 470. 160 , NARADA. XI, 25. is engaged in cultivating the field, (the owner) shall recover his field, after having paid (to the cultivator) the whole expense incurred in tilling the waste. 25. A deduction of an eighth part (shall be made), till seven years have elapsed. But when the eighth year arrives, (the owner) shall recover the field cultivated (by the other, as his independent property). * 26. A tract of land (which has not been under cultivation) for-a year is called Ardhakhila (halfwaste). That which has not been (under cultivation) for three years is called Khila (waste). That which has not been under cultivation for five years is no better than a forest.
3* 26. A tract of land (which has not been under cultivation) for-a year is called Ardhakhila (halfwaste). That which has not been (under cultivation) for three years is called Khila (waste). That which has not been under cultivation for five years is no better than a forest. 27. A field which has been held by three generations in succession, and a house which has been inherited from an ancestor, cannot be estranged (from its legitimate owner) by force of possession, except when the king wills it so. * 28. When grain has been destroyed by cows or 25. It appears from an analogous text of K4tyayana that this rule is intended for those cases where the owner is unable to pay for the expense incurred by the cultivator. Katyayana says, ‘If through want of means (the owner) do not repay the expense entailed by the cultivation of the waste, the cultivator shall be allowed to keep the produce minus an eighth part. During eight years he may keep the (annual) produce (minus an eighth). After that period, it shall belong to the proprietor.’ 26. These definitions are inserted here, because the previous rules according to the commentators apply to a desert or forest only, the cultivation of which causes considerable difficulty and expense. 28-42. N4rada’s eleventh title of law, though called ‘Boundary Disputes,’ is in reality a collection of all legal rulcs relating to fields. Manu and those who follow him treat the subject of damage done by cattle to crops or grass as a section of the chapter on ‘Disputes between master and herdsman,’ which title of law is wanting in the Narada-smriti. 28. Gautama XIJ, 20. XI, 32. BOUNDARY DISPUTES. 161 other cattle crossing a fence, the herdsman deserves punishment in that case, unless he should have done his best to keep the cattle off. * 29. When grain has been destroyed (altogether), with the root, the owner of it may claim a corresponding quantity of grain (as damages) ; the herdsman shall be corporally punished ; and on his master he shall impose a fine. * 30. A cow within ten days after her calving, a full grown bull, a horse, and an elephant shall be kept off carefully. The owner of any one out of these animals is not liable to punishment (should they do mischief). * 31. For (mischief done by) a cow he shall inflict a fine of one MAsha ; for (mischief done by) a female buffalo, two M4shas; in the case of a goat or sheep (trespassing) with its young, the fine shall amount to half a M4sha. * 32. The (owners of) elephants and horses shall not have to pay any fine; for they are looked upon as protectors of (the king’s) subjects. Impunity is (likewise) granted to (the owner of) a strayed cow, 29. The author of the Viramitrodaya (p. 450) observes expressly that the term vadha denotes corporal punishment, and not execution, in this place. The other commentators agree with him. Manu VIII, 241; Yagaavalkya II, 161 ; Gautama XII, 26; Vishzu V, 146. The Nepalese MS. omits this paragraph. .
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*1o, Should a single man undertake to fix the boundary, (he must do so) after having kept a fast, in a collected frame of mind, wearing a garland of red flowers and a (red) cloak, having strewed earth on his head. *11. Should there be no persons conversant (with the true state of the question) and no boundary marks, then the king himself shall fix the boundary between the two estates, as he thinks best. 12. According to this rule let all contests be decided in regard to houses, gardens, reservoirs of water, sanctuaries and the rest, as well as the space intermediate between two villages. *13. When trees have grown on the boundary (or ridge) separating two contiguous fields, the fruits and blossoms shall be assigned to the owners of the two fields in common. g. According to the Viramitrodaya (p. 458), this prohibition in regard to the determination of the boundary by a single man, has reference to those only who are not acceptable to both parties and unacquainted with the law. to. Manu VIII, 256; Yagiavalkya II, 152. ; 11. In default of neighbours and other persons conversant with the state of the matter, and of trees and other boundary marks, the king shall fix the boundary of his own accord. He shall distribute the ground intermediate between the two villages, which has become the subject of a contest, between the two litigant parties, and fix landmarks between the two. Viramitrodaya, p. 460. Manu VIII, 265; Y4gravalkya II, 153. 158 NARADA. XT, 14. *14. When the boughs (or offshoots) of trees grown on the field of one man should take root in the field of another man, they must be known to belong by right to the owner (of that field), because they have sprung forth in another field (than the stem of the tree). *15. A cross-road, the sanctuary of a deity, a street, and a public road must not be obstructed by (a place for) ordure, a terrace, a pit, an aqueduct, the edge of a thatch (syandanik4), or the like (obstructions). 16. Should any one cause such obstruction through inadvertency or by force, the king shall impose on him a fine of the highest degree. *17, The (erection of a) dike in the middle of another man’s field is not a prohibited act, as it may be productive of considerable advantage, whereas the loss is trifling. That is to be desired as (comparative) gain where there is (a slight) loss (only). *18. There are two sorts of dikes (or watercourses), one (called kheya) which is dug into the ground, and (another called bandhya) which prevents the access of water. A kheya dike serves the purpose of irrigation, a bandhya dike serves to keep the water off. *19. No grain is (ever produced) without water ; 14. This rule seems to be intended principally for banyans and the like trees covering a large area with their offshoots. The Nepalese MS. omits vv. 13, 14, 16. 15. The term syandanik4 is variously explained as denoting either the projecting roof or the eaves of a house. 17. Yagavalkya II, 156.
2This rule seems to be intended principally for banyans and the like trees covering a large area with their offshoots. The Nepalese MS. omits vv. 13, 14, 16. 15. The term syandanik4 is variously explained as denoting either the projecting roof or the eaves of a house. 17. Yagavalkya II, 156. 18. Kheya means literally ‘what is capable of being dug,’ and bandhya ‘ what is capable of being stopped.’ What is meant by these two terms may best be seen from the next paragraph. XI, 24. BOUNDARY DISPUTES. “159 but too much water tends to spoil the grain. An inundation is as injurious (to growth) as a dearth of water. *2o. If a man were to put in repair a dike erected long ago, but decayed, without asking the permission of the owner, he shall not have (the use and) profits of it. * 21. However, after the death of the owner or of another man sprung from the same race (who has succeeded to his property), he may repair the dike, after having been authorized to do so by the king. * 22. By acting otherwise he will get into trouble, in the same way as the hunter (of the tale). The shafts of him are spent in vain who hits again and again one who has been hit already. * 23. When the owner of a field is unable (to cultivate it), or dead, or gone no one knows whither, any stranger who undertakes its cultivation unchecked (by the owner or others) shall be allowed to keep the produce. * 24. When the owner returns while the stranger ao. With the owner’s permission, any man may restore a dike, &c., which has fallen into decay. Viramitrodaya, p. 468. Yagvavalkya II, 157. Read pravréttam in the text. 21. The authority of the king is required, because, without it, the profits of the dike would have to be enjoyed by the king himself. See YAgviavalkya II, 157. a2. The tertium comparationis in this simile has to be sought in the vanity of the effort only. Manu (IX, 73) applies the same simile to seed, i.e. semen virile spent in vain on the field, i.e. wife of a stranger. 23. ‘Unable’ (to cultivate the field) through want of means. ‘A field,’ one which has become a desert. Vivadadintamasi, p. 64. 24. ‘The owner,’ or his son or other (descendant). ‘The whole expense incurred in tilling the waste,’ the cost of converting the desert into cultivated ground. Viramitrodaya, pp. 469, 470. 160 , NARADA. XI, 25. is engaged in cultivating the field, (the owner) shall recover his field, after having paid (to the cultivator) the whole expense incurred in tilling the waste. 25. A deduction of an eighth part (shall be made), till seven years have elapsed. But when the eighth year arrives, (the owner) shall recover the field cultivated (by the other, as his independent property). * 26. A tract of land (which has not been under cultivation) for-a year is called Ardhakhila (halfwaste). That which has not been (under cultivation) for three years is called Khila (waste). That which has not been under cultivation for five years is no better than a forest.
3* 26. A tract of land (which has not been under cultivation) for-a year is called Ardhakhila (halfwaste). That which has not been (under cultivation) for three years is called Khila (waste). That which has not been under cultivation for five years is no better than a forest. 27. A field which has been held by three generations in succession, and a house which has been inherited from an ancestor, cannot be estranged (from its legitimate owner) by force of possession, except when the king wills it so. * 28. When grain has been destroyed by cows or 25. It appears from an analogous text of K4tyayana that this rule is intended for those cases where the owner is unable to pay for the expense incurred by the cultivator. Katyayana says, ‘If through want of means (the owner) do not repay the expense entailed by the cultivation of the waste, the cultivator shall be allowed to keep the produce minus an eighth part. During eight years he may keep the (annual) produce (minus an eighth). After that period, it shall belong to the proprietor.’ 26. These definitions are inserted here, because the previous rules according to the commentators apply to a desert or forest only, the cultivation of which causes considerable difficulty and expense. 28-42. N4rada’s eleventh title of law, though called ‘Boundary Disputes,’ is in reality a collection of all legal rulcs relating to fields. Manu and those who follow him treat the subject of damage done by cattle to crops or grass as a section of the chapter on ‘Disputes between master and herdsman,’ which title of law is wanting in the Narada-smriti. 28. Gautama XIJ, 20. XI, 32. BOUNDARY DISPUTES. 161 other cattle crossing a fence, the herdsman deserves punishment in that case, unless he should have done his best to keep the cattle off. * 29. When grain has been destroyed (altogether), with the root, the owner of it may claim a corresponding quantity of grain (as damages) ; the herdsman shall be corporally punished ; and on his master he shall impose a fine. * 30. A cow within ten days after her calving, a full grown bull, a horse, and an elephant shall be kept off carefully. The owner of any one out of these animals is not liable to punishment (should they do mischief). * 31. For (mischief done by) a cow he shall inflict a fine of one MAsha ; for (mischief done by) a female buffalo, two M4shas; in the case of a goat or sheep (trespassing) with its young, the fine shall amount to half a M4sha. * 32. The (owners of) elephants and horses shall not have to pay any fine; for they are looked upon as protectors of (the king’s) subjects. Impunity is (likewise) granted to (the owner of) a strayed cow, 29. The author of the Viramitrodaya (p. 450) observes expressly that the term vadha denotes corporal punishment, and not execution, in this place. The other commentators agree with him. Manu VIII, 241; Yagaavalkya II, 161 ; Gautama XII, 26; Vishzu V, 146. The Nepalese MS. omits this paragraph. .
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.