Yajnavalkya-smriti (Vyavaharadhyaya)—Critical study

by Kalita Nabanita | 2017 | 87,413 words

This page relates ‘Laws Relating to Disputes between Owner of Cattle and Herdsmen’ of the study on the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Yajnavalkya-smriti: one of the most prominent Smritis dealing with Dharmashastra (ancient Indian science of law), dating to the 1st century B.C. The Yajnavalkyasmriti scientifically arranges its contents in three sections: Acara (proper conduct), Vyavahara (proper law) and Prayashcitta (expiation). Vyavahara deals with judicial procedure and legal system such as substantive law and procedural law.

Chapter 5.8 - Laws Relating to Disputes between Owner of Cattle and Herdsmen

Yājñavalkya enumerates the laws governing the liabilities of owner of the cattle and the person employed to look after them in respect of various aspects, issues arising out of their relationships as the fifth title of law, called svāmipālavivāda. He lays down the rules to regulate their extent of liabilities for any damage done by the animals to others fields, crops, etc., and also liability for injury, loss or death of animals. Thus, it is a kind of law governing the relation between employer and employee. Yājñavalkya recommends at first the fines to be paid to the owner of the crops for destroying his crops by the cattle, which belong to another person and are under the custody of herdsmen for the purpose of grazing, etc. The fine varies depending upon the nature of animals. In case of buffalo causing damage of crops, fine of eight māṣas is prescribed, that for a cow, ass or a camel is of four māṣas and for a goat or lamb, etc., fine is of two māṣas. The fine may be increased, having regard to the magnitude of injury. The fine becomes double of that mentioned above, in respect of cattle eating and lying in another’s field. Double fine is also recoverable, when cattle destroys a plot of land where grass and fuel are stored.[1] Besides the fine, the owner of the field is required to be compensated, as much as of the produce of the fields that have been destroyed. The keeper or a herdsman is to be chastised and the owner of the cattle has to pay the fine already stated before.[2]

The Mitākṣarā commentary makes clear the individual liability of the keeper and the owner of the cattle. He states that the herdsmen only to be beaten or he should receive corporal punishment but should not be compelled to pay for the produce. If the injury to the crop occurs by the fault of the keeper, then he may be chastised and required to pay pecuniary fine. The owner of the cattle is liable to pay the fine only and not a corporal punishment when the crop is damaged due to his own fault. However, in every case, the rule is that the produce must be made good by the owner of the cattle alone.[3] An exception to the liabilities of the owner is provided in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. The owner or the keeper is not to be held guilty or blameworthy and it will not be considered as trespass of the cattle in certain circumstances, when the cattle stray on a field situated near in the neighborhood of the village, a pasture ground or adjacent to a road without any design or collition on the part of the owner. However, the author safeguards the interest of the owner of crops from the dishonest owner of cattle or herdsmen, if they allow the cattle to gaze willingly, then they should be punished like a thief.[4] This rule is to be understood as applicable with reference to an open field, which is not protected by hedge or any other means.[5]

Yājñavalkya allows special exemption in case of particular animals. It is laid down that a big bull, animals discharged, that recently gave birth to young ones, a beast wondering away from its own herd, other beast over whom there is no keeper, those distressed by the acts of god or the king are to be released or set free, i.e., there will not be any penalty in such cases.[6]

Yājñavalkya states the liabilities and obligations incurred by the herdsmen towards the owner of the cattle. It is the duty of the keeper to restore the cattle every evening to its owner in the same condition as it has been given to his custody. In case, any cattle is lost, strayed, died due to the fault or negligent act of the keeper who is paid or whose wages has been fixed, then such keeper is bound to compensate. The punishment of the keeper, when the animals are killed, owing to his own fault is distinctly stated that he has to pay a fine of thirteen paṇas and a half and also he has to make good the loss to the owner.[7] Yājñavalkya under this title of law advocates a beneficial provision that a portion of land should be kept apart as pasture ground for cattle according to the desire of the villagers or by the authority of the king.[8] He further provides that between a village and fields, on all sides, distance of a hundred dhanus, should be left, the distance should be two hundred dhanus when villages covered with abundant thorny bushes and the extent of space should be four hundred dhanus in case of a town.[9]

It is worth mentioning that under Section 83–88 of Assam Land and Regulation, 1886,there is a provision is there regarding allotment of land for village grazing ground. Authority is conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner to demarcate and prepare a map of the land to reserve for grazing of the village cattle if he is satisfied that any government wasteland is required so. There is provision for hearing any objection from the people and to make such alterations as deemed necessary.[10] At present, under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code, makes it a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with both, when a person knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession, which may endanger human life or any probable danger of grievous hurt.[11] The owner of the cattle is also liable and can be sued under the law of torts if his cattle commit trespass on the land of another person. His liability in such case is strict and he is liable for the damage which directly results from that trespass.[12]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

māṣānaṣṭau tu mahiṣī sasyadhātasya kārinī/ daṇḍanīyā tadardhaṃ tu gaustadardhamajā vikam// bhakṣayitvopaviṣṭānāṃ yathoktāddriguṇo damaḥ/ samameṣaṃ rivīto’pi kharoṣtraṃ mahiṣīsamam// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.159-160

[2]:

yā vatsasya vinaśyettu tāvatsyātkṣetriṇaḥ phalam/ gopastāḍyaśca gomī tu pūrvoktaṃ daṇḍamarhati// Ibid., 2.161

[3]:

gopastu tāḍanīya eva na phalaṃ dāpanīyaḥ/ gopasya ca tāḍanaṃ pūrvoktadhanadaṇḍasahitameva pāladoṣeṇa sasyanāśo draṣṭavyam/… gomī puṇaḥ svāparādhena sasyanāśe pūrvoktaṃ daṇḍamevārhati na tāḍanam/ phaladānaṃ punaḥ sarvatra gosvāmina eva/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.

[4]:

pathi grāmavivītānte kṣetre doṣo na vidyate/ akāmataḥ kāmacāre cauravaddaṇḍamarhati// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.162

[5]:

etaccānāvṛtakṣetraviṣayam/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid

[6]:

mahokṣotsṣṛṭapaśavaḥ sūtikāgantukādayaḥ/ pālo yeṣāṃ na te mocyā daivarājapariplutaḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.163

[7]:

Ibid., 2.164-165

[8]:

grāmyecchaya gopracāro bhūmī rājavaśena vā/ Ibid., 2.166

[9]:

dhanuḥśataṃ parīṇāho grāme kṣetrāntaraṃ bhavet/ dve śate kharvaṭasya syānnagarasya catuḥśatam// Ibid., 2.167

[10]:

Vide, Das, J.N., Op.cit., page53-54

[11]:

Vide, Misra, S.N., Indian Penal Code, page429

[12]:

Bangia, R.K., Op.cit., page428-429

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: