365bet娱乐

From the evidence in the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, the king had every power to arrest and punish any person without showing any reason whatsoever. Jarasandha arrested Vasudeva without any reason and asked his officers to kill him, as his foreteller had told him that Vasudeva's son is going to be his enemy ³. In spite of such a power vested in the king, it is certain that he had to abide by certain rules and regulations in the proper running of the administration. 1. Ibid., 295. 3. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 350. 2. Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, II.59a.

115 It seems from the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa that in judicial matters the king had very restricted powers, as several of the Settled disputes were by locally accepted judiciary bodies. For example, a king had no say in the matters of a sabha or a club. In a bait organised by such a sabha Subhanu was defeated by Samba and he was not ready to let him go till he paid the sum agreed upon previously. When Kanha asked Samba to free Subhanu and not to harass him, Samba very bluntly replied that a king has nothing to do in the matters of a bait (paniya) and that his only work was to punish the guilty and to protect the righteous 1. As the examples from the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa show, the popular a bodies who many, time gave a verdict in the day-to-day h disputes were not at all just. These bodies consisted of respected persons (mahajana) who were not concerned in any way with the matter (majjhattha). The verdict depended more on words than the meaning of the acts. It can be very well illustrated in the case of a villager cited in the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa 2. In this story a gahavati was taking certain commodities to be sold in the city market in a cart. There was also a cage in the cart, wherein was kept a tittiri bird. Some traders with a desire to purchase the bird asked the villager as to what the price of the sagadatittiri 1. Ibid., 107. 2. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 57-58.

116 (meaning 'the tittiri bird deposited in the cart', and also 'the partridge and the cart') was. A Kahavana was the answer. They paid the price and took away both the cart and the partridge. The villager said that the cart was not included in the price. When the matter was taken to the court (vavaharo jato) the trader defeated the villager by playing upon the word Sagadatittiri. The story, however, does not end here. When the dejected villager started towards the village with the bullocks with him and lamented over the deceit by the traders, a gentleman (kulaputta) accosted him and inquired about the reason of his dejection. after hearing the account, he suggested a plan to counteract the traders. The villager defeated the traders in the courts of law with a similar trick played upon them. The complainant approached king in his court and made a statement about his complaint. The king, then if required, made an investigation secretly through his agents and gave his decision-, or asked both the parties to present themselves in the court before the judge who was sometimes his minister - and argue their cases in front of the juries. 1. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 217.

117 The judge after listening to both the parties gave his reflections to the juries and then the decision was declared¹. In the Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, reference has also been made to the different practices of lodging a complaint in the court of the king. Whoever wanted his case to be judged by the king stood near a pole in the city, which was called anahakhambha,i.e. a destitutes pole. Officers employed in the judicial service (ahukaranika) ahukaranika) of the king used to conduct an inquiry in the case. A report of the same was furnished to the king, on the basis of which the king gave his verdict. An inquiry about the injuries inflicted on the Bhaddaga buffalo was done in a similar way by the officials of the king of Savatthi. The king, finding that the crown prince was responsible for the guilt, asks his minister to execute the prince². In the actual hearing by the court, the judge asked the accused whether he had anything to say against the charge. The accused was declared guilty and was punished if some witness came forward ³, or some written 3 1. Ibid., 353-54. 2. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 270. 3. Ibid., 294-95.

118 record was forwarded in support of the stand of the complainant. Test by Ordeal : In the absence of such any evidence, both parties were asked to perform an ordeal. The Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa gives a story of two traders who had to perform the 'scale ordeal' (tuladivva) 2. The traders concerned had made an So oral agreement that one should give a lakh of coins to the other in connection with their business. The trader who had promised to give the money refused to do even after his becoming a rich merchant. The other filed a suit against him. As there was no written evidence the officers in the royal court suggested an ordeal 3. In this ordeal, the scales fell down in the case of the person who spoke the truth, while it did not so happen in the case of the liar 4. 1. Ibid. 2. P. 295. 3. Mitaksara says that an ordeal should not be performed if the dispute is about an amountless than a thousand coins; see Vajna, II.7.100-102. 4. For details about the erecting of the scales and the procedure of performing the ordeal, see, Mitaksara (p.186) on Yajna,

na From the judgements given in the Vasudevahindi(F), it can na be said that in the matter of the distribution of property, the son, right prior to his birth (gabbhattho), could exercise the full right over the property of his father, while the daughter got only a share of it 1. In case the son was a minor one, the property of his father was passed on to his mother. The step mother could be provided of only with the necessities, life, i.e. food and shelter, if the mother of the son wished to so². In the matters of marriage the maidens could leave their proposed husband if he proved himself to be unable to protect them in times of danger³, as it is said that whoever is the requer of life (dhammao jiviyadata) exercises the supreme right over the maidens+. So also, no person had any right to detain his wife if she did not want to live with him on the grounds of her superiority over him in birth. Saccabhama, a daughter of a brahmin came to know after her marriage that her husband was not a Brahmin. She, after lodging a complaint with the king, took the permission to live separately from her husband 5. 1. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 216. 2. Ibid., 354. 3. Vasudevahindi by Sanghadasa, 70. 4. Ibid., 224. 5. Ibid., 320.

120 In the Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa there is a fuller description of the procedure of the hearing of the case by a judge and also some description of an ideal sabha in connection with vavahara (proceedings) filed against Vasudeva by king Manasavega¹. y According to Vasudeva, the members of a sabha should be mature in age (vuddha), righteous, truthful and not working under the influence of an outsider. The members of a sabha were supposed to acquire sin where an unjust judgement is proclaimed (visamavavaharakari) as a result of the suppresion of truth by untruth and righteousness by unrighteousness, A member should rather refrain from entering the sabha, than give an untrue judgement. In an ideal sabha the president should take due care in showing equality to both the parties, the accused and the complainant, irrespective of their status in the society. In a Vidyadhara-sabha, the complainant, first of all, bet a drum at the sound of which all the nikayavuddhas gather to listen to the case. After the statement of accusation from the complainant, the judge asked the accused if he could defend his case. After listening to the both, the judge referred the case to the sabhasadas. 1. Vasudevahindi by Dharmadasa, 1.29a-31a.

121 On the other hand, any person who wanted to be successful in winning a case was advised to take into consideration various factors such as, the comparative strength of the two parties, the helpers and the antagonists. During the procedure of the hearing, it was expected that none of the parties should over-look the judge and the juries and resort to force. In a case concerning a marriage dispute the judges gave the verdict that the mother had no right over the daughter- and that words not spoken seriously (pariyamdana) were not to be treated as a promise 2.