[66] e.g. if one, for a consideration, pledge a field to another, and then pledge the same field to some one else, also for a consideration—the first act is the valid one. (M.)
[67] Sir Wm. Jones and other learned persons would seem to have restricted the term here used (pashyati) to personal knowledge by sight; but it comprehends every mode of personal and actual observation or discovery.
[68] who has no legal connection with it. (M.)
[69] 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.
[70] any thing delivered for safe-keeping, its quality and quantity being made known. (M.)
[71] explained infra, sloka 65.
[72] The word literally or usually means "takes away"; and the Commentator explains—where a pledgee retains and refuses to give back the pledge, relying upon his long possession. The &c. refers to the other exceptions in sloka 25.
[73] The Commentator considers the force and intent of this qualification to be, to make the fine commensurate with the usurper's means, with a view rather of enhancing it to the wealthy than of moderating it to the poor, who are perhaps less likely to offend in this wise.
[74] gift, sale, &c. (M.)
[75] as proof of ownership, (M.) Manu, ch. 8, sl. 200.