Note 69 — LAW AND JUDICATURE.

The Commentator quotes Nárada, scil. "The guilty one who holds possession without title, for even many hundred years, should be punished by the monarch as a thief"—and he endeavours to reconcile with this the law of Yájnavalkya, by confining the latter to the fruits or profits of the land withheld. But this construction cannot be admitted. There is a curious document germane to the subject of this sloka copied in the official notes of Sir Robert Chambers (Chief Justice of the Calcutta Supreme Court) in July 1791. It is a letter from Sir William Jones to the Governor of Bombay upon the Hindu title by adverse possession or prescription. Sir William writes, that the doctrine of the Mitákshará is; "An absolute property may be acquired in land by continued and undisputed possession for twenty years, in the presence of the owner, provided that the possessor came in by a fair title, either by descent or purchase; if he had no fair title, the intermediate profits only are irrecoverable, but the property is not lost." And he concludes; "I only add for your further satisfaction, that, if three descents have happened since the first possession, without a fair title, property is lost, even though the owner was absent; but if three descents have not been cast, an adverse possession for a hundred years gives an absolute property in the land to the possessor, unless the owner was under some legal disability." These may have been the modifications of a later age: they are not to be found in Manu or in Yájnavalkya. Manu ch. 8, sl. 147, &c.