26. CIVIL JUSTICE IN THE PĀṆḌYĀ PERIOD Contents | Previous | Next | Academy ________________________________________ 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 Tamiḻ country, dating back to 8th-9th centuries C.E give us a glimpse into the disposal of civil suits by the king himself. Both of them relate to the early Pāṇḍyā period. One is the celebrated Veḷvikkuṭi grant (1. Epigraphia Indica Vol. XVII pages 291-309.) of Pārāntaka Neduñjaḍaiyaṉ and the other is the Daḷavāypuram grant (2. T. N. Subramaniam, Transactions of the Archaeological Society - 1962, p. 55.) of Parāntaka Vīranārāyaṇaṉ. 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 here to analyse the plates from this angle which throws new light on the administration of civil justice in ancient Tamiḻ land. Most of the copper plates so far found belong to the class of documents known as dānapatra (gift deeds). 26.1. Kinds of documents There are ten kinds of documents according to Vyāsa and Prajāpati (3. B. Guru Raja Rao. Ancient Hindu Judicature-1920. P.108.) They are:- • Upagata - Receipts • Ādhi patra - Mortgage • Kraya patra - Sale deed • Sthiti patra - Perpetual conduct • Sandhi patra - Compact • Visuddhi patra - Purificatory deed • Vibhāga patra - Partition deed • Dana patra - Gifts • Dāsa patra - Enslavement • Śimāvivāda patra — Settlement of boundary dispute The Pallava copper plates and the Pāṇḍyā plates, excepting the two mentioned above, refer to gift of lands either to individuals or to institutions 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 Vēḷvikkuṭi grant and the Daḷavāypuram grant belong to a different class of royal records. In both the cases, gifts 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 king directly. Having examined the cases the king restored the lands to the descendants of the original donees. Thus, they relate to the settlement of ownership rights 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-śāstra. 26.2. The Vēḷvikkuṭi Grant The Vēḷvikkuṭi grant of Parāntaka Neduñjaṭaiyaṉ, consists of two parts, the Sanskrit and Tamiḻ parts (like the other copper plates). The Sanskrit portion stops with the listing of the geneaology of Parāntaka. The Tamiḻ part begins straight away with the details of the appeal that the village Vēḷvikkuṭi was gifted to one Nārkōṟṟaṉ also known as Koṟkai Kiḻaṉ, by the Pāṇḍyā ruler; Palyāgasālai-mudukuṭumip-peruvaḻudi, when he completed a yāga (vēḷvi). It is said that the village was in the long possession of the donee (nīdu bhukti tuyttapiṉ) when the Kali king, named Kalabhra, who overthrew a number of rulers (Ādhirājās), deprived the donees of the enjoyment of the village.
A descendant of the donee, whose name is given as Koṟkai Kiḻaṉ Kāmakkaṉi Narasiṅgaṉ, went to the palace of the Pāṇḍyā ruler, Parāntaka Neduñjaṭaiyaṉ, at Kūṭal and angrily shouted at the outskirts (ākrōtikka). 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 (Kaṭuṅkōṉ, Avani Cūlāmaṇi, Ceḻiyaṉ Cēntaṉ, Arikēsari, Kōccaṭayaṉ and Rājasimhaṉ), six Pāṇḍyā rulers had passed away. “This land was given by your ancestor Mudukuṭimi Peruvaḻuti. The name of the village is Vēḷvikkuṭi situated in Pakanūrkuṟṟam (territorial sub division). This was removed by the Kalabhras” appealed Narasiṅghaṉ. 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, 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 Mūvēnta-maṅgalap-pēraraiyaṉ as the ājñāpati of the grant a few words used in this text are clearly legal terms employed in Dharma-śāstra. 26.3. Nīdu Bhukti In describing the village gifted, it is said that it was in their enjoyment for long nīdu bhukti. Bhukti enjoyment (possession) is considered an important evidence in civil suits. The disputing party, when called upon should produce valid evidence (pramāṇa) to prove his case. “Proof is of three kinds. 1. Human (manuṣika), 2. Divine (deivika), 3. Enjoyment (bhukti). Human proof is furnished by a) Documents (likhita), b) Witness (sākṣi), and 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 legal title Āgama, 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 Yājñavalkya, title however perfect, if unaccompanied by slight possession is of no value. Possession is insisted on by Kātyāyana and Bṛhaspati 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 Vēḷvikkuṭi 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 referred to as “Nattānin Paḻamaiyānatu”. It probably refers to the records in the country accounts that it belonged to the family of Koṟkai Kiḻaṉs. It is not known whether the original dānapatra was lost or confiscated. In its absence the country accounts were shown as valid proof. 2. The second evidence was the actual enjoyment for a long period (nīdu bhukti). The use of the word “bhukti” in the Vēḷvikkuṭi grant clearly indicates its legal implication. As two valid pramāṇas were shown, the king had no hesitation in confering the title back on the descendants.
In describing the Pāṇḍyā ruler, Parāntaka, who heard the case, and confered back the gift, the following significant titles are used. Manupamaṉ, Kantaka-niṣtūraṉ, and Gudha-nirṇayaṉ, which are terms associated with dharma. In the Śrivaramaṅgalam plates, the same ruler is described as one following the path of “Manu-darśana”, who extolled elders and did “Kantaka sodhana”.
Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra describes two classes of courts called Dharmasthiya, and “Kantaka sodhana” as prevalent at that time. The Dharmasthiya 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 Uttaramērūr inscription of Parāntakas’ grāma kantakas criminals who have turned against the village are referred to. (2. Epi. Indi. Vol. XXII) The fact that Pāṇḍyā Neṭuñjaṭaiyaṉ performed “Kantaka sodhana” himself shows that the concept was well known in Tamiḻ country in 8th century and the king himself headed that council to hear heinous crimes against the state. However, in the Vēḷvikkuṭi grant, one point namely why the appeal was not prefered, and why the descendants waited for nearly six generations is not clear. 26.4. Daḷavāypuram Plates The Daḷavāypuram plates of Parāntaka Vīranarāyaṇa 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 Daḷavāypuram plates also consists of two parts, the first in Sanskrit and the second in Tamiḻ language. Unlike the Vēḷvikkuṭi grant, the dispute and the decision are recorded both in the Sanskrit and Tamiḻ parts. Sanskrit portion is interesting because of its terminology. The case is briefly as follows. The Pāṇḍyā ruler Kaṭuṅkōṉ gifted a village Śrimaṅgalam as a Brahmadeya to twelve Brahmins. Another Pāṇḍyā ruler, whose name is not mentioned but who is said to have died at Kaluṭūr is said to have gifted the village Somāsikuṟicci to one Kātaka Sōmāyāji who became an exclusive owner of the Brahmadeya. But both the dānapatras, (the copper plates) were lost during troubled conditions (maṟakkēṭu) (probably referring to Kalabhra occupation. Part of this Sōmāsikuṟicci was subsequently seperated by a Śūdra who appropriated it to himself under the new name Madhuratara nallūr. (1. Ibid pp. 8.) 26.5. The Appeal So, the appeal was refered to the king. The appellant was one Nārāyanaṉ Kēsavaṉ of Somāsikuṟucci, who served as a confidential officer of the Pāṇḍyā. The appeal was that:- • The new Village Madhuratara nallūr should be restored to Somāsikkurṟucci, • The new Śūdra occupant should be expelled from the land; and • The boundaries of the villages Śrimaṅgalam and Somāsikuṟucci 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 accordingly. Neither in the Sanskrit portion nor in the Tamiḻ 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 Nārāyanaṉ Kēsavaṉ who appealed, is referred to as a highly learned and a great Scholar in political science Kṣatramatam uṇarntu and was a person of pure and high integrity (suddha śīla ācāraṉ) and above all was a trustworthy officer serving the king (visvasa karmaṅgatkaya taṉmaiyaṉ) 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 Sākṣi. However, the land was not claimed by the appellant to himself but on behalf of the village assembly of Śrimaṅgalam and Sōmāsikkuṟucci The king giving the order is mentioned as Manucaritaṉ which is interesting. Sah Somāsikurucchi iti khyatah-tasya eka desa bhuh Madhuratara sadgrāma nāmnā Sūdrābhilanghitā. Tam acchidya tatah pūrva svāmibhogyam Prakalpya ca, tasyah Sūdrakrita ākhyānavyāvrkittm upapadya ca, tadekibhūta Somāsikurucchih ekatām saha Srimangalena sampadya Suddhapustakalekhayā grāmānvaya paurastya tamrapatta pramānayoh nasadoshaniräkartum tayoh ca ekatva buddhaye aikyena grāmayoh kritvā simānam karinipadaih tamrapatta pramananca kalpayitva diyatām. (D. Plates line 43 to 47) In this case the Officer should be considered a Sākṣi - witness. According to Nārada, King and King's Officers could be made Sākṣi. Here the king's officer Nārāyanaṉ kēsavaṉ was considered a witness, for he is described as belonging to a good family and follower of śaruta and smārta path (śrauta smarta adhvagena). According to Yājñavalkya, śrauta smārta kriyāpara (fallowers of śrauta and smārta path) satyavādi kulīnas, etc., are to be considered as witnessess. It is interesting that in the copper plate the same words as śruta smārta advaga occurs. 26.6. 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. Yājñyavalkya - lekhya V. 91) When the document is lost, a new one should be prepared which is called suddhi. In the Daḷavāypuram plate, the document is lost and the ownership was in dispute. So, the document has to be prepared anew which is called in Dharma-śāstra as Sandhigdha lekhya suddhi (2. Yājñyavalkya - 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 naśadoṣa, and the suddhi was intended to remove this defect, refered to in the copper plates as nasa doṣa nirākartum. The request in the Daḷavāypuram plates is mentioned as tamrapaṭṭa pramāṇam kalpayitvā diyatam. Here also the technical term pramaṇa is used in a legal sense. The king is said to have got it written on a copper plate tamrapaṭṭa. In the Tamiḻ portion of the plates the king is requested to issue a śāsana. According to Nārada, there are four ways of terminating a vyavahāra or dispute. They are 1. dharma - abstract justice, 2. vyavāhāra - decision after contest, 3. caritra - written law and 4. Rāja-śāsanam - 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 Rāja-śāsana and the Tamiḻ portion of the copper plates uses the same terminology and in this case the king's śāsana was to be the last word. 26.7. Vyavahāra Nirṇaya Thus it is seen, that both the Veḷvikkuṭi and the Daḷavāypuram grants belong to the vyavahaāra nirṇaya class of dānapatras unlike the other copper plates. They clearly indicate that as early as eighth century C.E the kings adopted in Tamiḻ country the tenets of Dharma-śāstra in deciding disputes. This would also show in the day to day purchse, pledge, and all other transactions relating to property etc., Dharma-śāstra were the guiding texts and this goes in accordance with the repeated assertion of the rulers that they were followers of Manu. This clearly proves 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 all over the country only the Dharma-śāstra, which is of utmost importance for the study of cultural unity of India. It also proves that the judgements were written bilingually in Sanskrit and Tamiḻ and that chaste Sasnkrit prose documents were very much in active use in Tamiḻnāṭu, in the 8th 9th Cent. CE.
