317 
1873.] Kajendralala Mitra —Two Copper-plate Inscriptions. 
extended to tlie close of the third decade of the twelfth century, and probab¬ 
ly to a much later period. His son and successor was Vijayachandra. He 
is said to have died in 116S A. D., # leaving the kingdom of Kanauj to his 
son Jaychandra, the last king, from whom the country passed to the Muham¬ 
madans. There are several copper plate patents extant of this sovereign. 
Six of them found by Captain Fell at Benares, and now in the Library of 
the Asiatic Society, bear dates as follow:— 
Nos. 1008-3 and 0, Sam vat 1233 A. D. 1175. 
No. 1008-4, Samvat 1234 == A. I). 1176. 
Nos. 1008-5, 7 and 8, Samvat 123G =; A. D. 1178. 
Lt. Col. Caulfield’s Faizabad plate,f Samvat 1243 = A. D. 1187. 
His overthrow by the Muhammadans took place in A. D. 1193, which 
gives a period of about twenty-six years for his reign. 
As the history of these sovereigns has been discussed at length by 
Colebrooke, Wilson, and others, and I have at present neither the time nor the 
inclination to write a monograph, I shall close these brief notes with a few 
remarks on the nature of the gift and on the various kinds of rights, taxes, and 
cesses which they bestowed on the donees. 
The gifts, as a rule, are absolute, and' to last, in the metaphorical 
language generally used are such occasions, “ as long as the sun and moon 
will endure.” Their resumption is also prohibited with dire imprecations. 
But no where is any mention made of the right of actual possession of the 
donor. The first impression produced on reading a copper-plate grant is 
that the proprietory right of the donor is conveyed to the donee, but looking 
to the fact that almost invariably there is a clause in the deed which says 
“ the inhabitants and local officers, should render to the donee all rents, 
taxes,” &c., or other words to that effect, the conclusion becomes evident that 
the right conveyed is, like that of the zamindars, limited to rents, &c., and 
does not extend to actual possession, which is taken for granted will rest 
with the tiller of the soil, except of course in the cases of unoccupied land, 
forests, mines, wastes, &c., which are frequently separately mentioned. This 
peculiarity in the land tenures of India was first pointed out by Colonel 
Sykes, and it shows the existence of zamindari rights of middle men apart 
and distinct from the occupancy rights of the cultivators. It shows also 
that the right of possession did not rest with the king. He was entitled to 
demand revenue or fcara, and cesses, but not to dispossess the occupant at will 
and pleasure. However extraordinary this may appear to persons who 
associate the idea of Indian sovereignty with every thing that is arbitrary and 
autocratic, it is a fact which is in perfect keeping with the laws of the land. 
* Ante XXVII, p. 218. 
+ Colebrooke’s Essays, II. pp. 289, 295, and 29G. Journal, As. Soc., II., pp. 341. 
and 342 ; XXVII, p. 218. Auto X, p. 98. 
