219 



cut away the wood and who cleared and tilled it." Another 

 Hindu sage, Jaimuni, states that the expressions magnifying 

 the power and glory of the king, such as that he is " lord of 

 all," ought not to be understood as placing all property at his 

 unrestricted disposal. His kingly power is for government 

 of the realm and extirpation of wrong, and for that purpose 

 he receives taxes from husbandmen and levies fines from 

 offenders. But right of property is not thereby vested in 

 him ; else he would have property in house and land apper- 

 taining to the subjects abiding in his dominions. The earth 

 is not the king's, but is common to all beings enjoying the 

 fruit of their labour. " It belongs to all alike; therefore, 

 although the gift of a piece of ground to any individual does 

 take place, the whole land cannot be given by a monarch ; 

 nor a province by a subordinate prince ; but houses and 

 fields acquired by purchase and similar means are Uable to 

 gift." Again, " the revenue only is to be taken by the prince ; 

 therefore, in a gift or other alienation by him of such lands 

 as aforesaid, gift of lands is not effected ; it is only a pro- 

 vision of income ; but in purchase from the land-holder, 

 ownership does accrue in the houses, land or other property 

 purchased ; and through ownership thus acquired and such 

 objects given, the benefits to the donor of the gift of land 

 may really be obtained." On the other hand, the property 

 of the ryot did not necessarily carry with it power to dispose 

 of it in any manner he thought fit ; and this for several rea- 

 sons. One is that the right ot individual ownership had not 

 in most parts of the country been developed, as lands were 

 held in joint-ownership by members of joint famihes and 

 village communities and regarded as constituting " an estate 

 dedicated equally to the support of sacrifices to the deceased 

 members, as to the sustenance of those living, and still to 

 come into life." ^^ Ancient Hindu Law accordmgly required 

 that the deed of sale of land should be attested by the " heir, 

 kinsmen, neighbours, villagers, an oflScer of the sovereign 

 and scribe." Dr. Burnell in his South Indian PalceoffrapJiy 

 gives the results of his examination of ancient documents and 

 inscriptions relating to transfers of property as follows : 

 " Down to recent times the land in South India was held by 

 village communities, and thus the greatest number of existing 

 private deeds are of grants by Sabhaiyar (from Sanscrit 

 Sabha), the heads of the community acting on its behalf. 

 The earliest documents of this kind, which are now in exist- 



'^ Vide decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhaskarappa versus the Collector of 

 North Canara : LI^E., Ill, Bombay, page 452, 



