243 



" BUT whence is it deduced, that such property 

 vests in the cultivator ? There is no proof of it. 

 His property is not by occupancy; for the king 

 being a more powerful owner, his occupancy cannot 

 be maintained : it is not by sale ; for no sale has 

 been made : it is not by gift from the king on. con- 

 dition of revenue; for, were it so, his property 

 cannot be annulled without the assent of the 

 owner." 



" SOME hold, that the subject is invested with 

 ownership by a gift from the king on condition 

 of revenue. If he go elsewhere and revenue be not 

 paid, the gift is cancelled by the breach of the con- 

 dition. It should not be objected, that his interest 

 in the land would be equal to the king's; for the 

 king's assent is not given in such a form. Thus, the 

 king assenting in these words, *' let a subordinate 

 usufructuary property be held by thee, while my 

 property remains in this land, which belongs to 

 me ;" such property is created, as is described by 

 the terms of his assent. Nor should it be objected 

 that in this case property is not created, nor is effect 

 given to an existent property, but mere possession 

 as of a thing pawned. This would be inconsistent 

 with the explanation of husbandman, as given by 

 CHANDESWAKA and others; that is, ' owner of the 

 field/' 



" A specific agreement should be made, when the 

 land is delivered , that it shall be enjoyed year by 



