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

30 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. II. 2. 4-7
[ M p 23 ll. 10-32
Rikthī means a son and the like who partakes of the heritage, tam
means āgamam (title). (An objector says) it is inconsistent (or absurd)
to say that possession for a long time is proof (of ownership) for it is
seen (in the texts) that a claimant loses (his right to a thing) even
after possession (by another) for a short time as is observed by the same
author (Yāj. II. 24)
A person loses land in twenty years when it is enjoyed by another
for that period before his eyes and without protest (from him) and
chattels in ten years¹
*The reply (to the above objection) is this (verse of Yāj.) is to be con-
strued as laying down that the man loses the profits arising from the land
and the like for that period (i. e. 20 or 10 years) when he sees (another
enjoy his land or chattels) and yet does not protest (or cause interruption)
and not as laying down that he loses also the thing itself viz. the land and
the like (after 20 or 10 years) since (the latter proposition) would be
opposed to the text already cited 'he however who enjoys without title &c'
(Nārada p. 62 v. 87) Kātyāyana says
The wrongful possessor of cattle, women or males (slaves) or his
son should not rely upon (mere) possession (as his support or strong
point in case of dispute), this is the rule of law ordained (by the sages)
Nārada (p. 61 v. 81) says
A pledge (or mortgage) boundaries, a minor's wealth, an open deposit
a sealed deposit, women (female slaves) the property of the king (or
state) and of a Brāhmaṇa learned in the Vedas, these are not lost (to
the owner) by the (long) possession (of another)²
Manu (8. 146) says
A milch cow, a camel, a riding horse, an animal that is handed over for being
broken (or trained), these (and other things) used through the friend-
ship (or assent of the owner) are never lost (to their owner through
long possession of another)
Damyah prayujyate means which is delivered for being broken
Here ends the section on possession
1 This verse has been variously interpreted from comparatively ancient times.
Medhātithi on Manu (8. 147) gives three interpretations. Nīlakaṇṭha follows the Mit.
The plain meaning of the verse is in conflict with the proposition that possession for
hundred years is required to create ownership. Therefore the words 'bhūmerhānīḥ'
are interpreted to mean 'loss of the profits of the land' and not 'loss of the land itself.'
It is almost certain that at different times and by different writers different periods of adverse
possessions were laid down, and the tendency seems to be to bring down the period for
adverse possession. Vide notes to V. M. pp. 63-64 for further details.
2 This is almost the same as Manu. 8. 149.
P. 23 (text)