व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

98 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. II § 12
[ M p 90 l 36-p 91 l 9 ]
Vyāsa declares that possession (in order to be valid evidence) must be
characterised by other attributes just as it must be accompanied by title :
It is desirable that possession (in order to be valid) must have five
attributes (lit parts) viz it must have title behind it it must be of long
standing unbroken free from protest and in the presence (before the very
eye) of the opposite party
Nārada (p 62 v 86) declares that a claim cannot be established by mere
possession :
He who pleads enjoyment alone and no title at all should be considered
a thief on account of his (merely) putting forward the deceptive plea
of possession (which even a thief can put forward)
†This rule (that mere possession without more is of no avail) only applies
to such a period of time during which it is possible to preserve the memory of
title but the same author (Nārada p 62 v 89) says that mere possession
would be valid evidence (with reference to a period of time) of which it
is not possible to preserve memory
In cases falling within the memory of man it is desirable that possession
must be accompanied with title in order to be recognised as valid proof
of ownership of land In cases beyond the memory of man possession
continued successively for three generations (is valid proof of ownership
over land) on account of the absence of certainty (that there is no title)¹
Anugamābhāvād means as the conclusion that there is no title cannot be
drawn by means of (the proof, called) non-apprehension (anupalabdhi)
of what is fit (to be apprehended)² Even in the case of possession beyond the
memory of man if there is continuance (or persistence) of memory as to
the absence of title (in the person or persons who had possession) the same
author (Nārada p. 62 v 87) says
That sinful man however who enjoys (has possession) without title
even though for several hundred years should be punished by the king
with the fine prescribed for a thief
1 Vide pp. 58-59 of the notes to V M. for detailed explanation of this verse and
of smārta kāla. According to the Mit. smārta kāla (period of human memory) is
said to be one hundred years according to the Smṛticandrikā and Mādhava it is a period
of 105 years. Three generations would come to about 100 years. According to some smṛtis
it is a period of sixty years and also three generations. Mandlik's translation (p 21 ll 16-17)
is loose and does not bring out the technical sense of anupalabdhi
2. For detailed explanation of anugamābhāvāt and yogyā upalabdhi vide note 1 to
M pp 59-60. Anupalabdhi is the last of six pramāṇas according to the Mīmāṁsakas, apart
from pratyakṣa and inference In such cases as in this place there is no jar we apprehend
the non-existence of the jar by this means of anupalabdhi.
P 31 (text)