XX 
Name of author quoted. 
6 . Narada 
7. Saxxibarta 
8. Katyayana 
g. Vrihaspati 
10. Vyasa 
11. Vrihat- Katyayana 
12. Sankha 
13. Likhita 
14. Usana 
15. Gautama 
16. Yama 
17. Prajapati 
18. Kaundilya 
19. Vrihad-Vasishta 
20. Vriddha-Satatapa 
No. of times 
quoted. 
107 
3 
137 
127 
36 
No. of passages 
not found in 
extant works 
16 
3 
137 
127 
36 
1 
1 
3 
3 
1 
4 
4 
1 
6 
3 
3 
1 
4 
4 
1 
6 
1 
1 
4 
4 
540 364 
Thus, out of the 40 quotations from Manu, 7 cannot be traced in the Institutes 
which have come down to us, and in the case of Narada, out of 107 quoted, 16 can 
not be similarly traced. But the most remarkable instances are those of Katya- 
yana, Vrihaspati and Vyasa. Of the first of these, r37 passages are quoted, of the 
second 127, and of the third 36. Not one of these can be traced in the writings now 
extant and attributed to these authors. The inference seems irresistible that the 
Institutes of these authors have come down to us in a very fragmentary form, and 
that in fact the division which dealt with Jurisprudence has almost entirely dis- 
appeared. 
As regards the subject-matter of the Book, three points deserve special mention. 
Jimutavahana deals at great length with the question of the acquisition of title by 
prescription, and sustains the position that an owner who has been kept out of his 
property without his knowledge ought not to lose his title thereto. As regards the 
adoption of an only son, Jimutavahana apparently favours its absolute invalidity, 
and it is rather unfortunate that the British ^Courts should have finally decided this 
question without knowledge of the views of Jimutavahana on the subject. Lastly, 
as regards the Law of Evidence, we have an elaborate discussion, much in advance 
of what is contained in other works on Hindu Law. 
I may add that Jimutavahana refers to a number of Jurists not mentioned by 
any other author, for instance, Jitendriya, Yogloka, Balaka, Viswarupa, Srikara, 
Manjarikar. Of one of these, Yogloka, he controverts the views frequently, and in 
one instance where he does this, his views were subsequently controverted by Chinta- 
mani, which would seem to indicate that Jimutavahana preceded Chintamani. If 
this position is sustained, the question of the period when Jimutavahana flourished 
will require reconsideration. 
