Chapter XXI. Samvid-vyatikrama and Other Titles (Violation of compacts or conventions)

Volume III pp. 486–501

Chapter XXI. Samvid-vyatikrama and Other Titles (Violation of compacts or conventions)

SAMVID-VYATIKRAMA AND OTHER TITLES ( Violation of compacts or conventions )

Nār. (XIII. 1) employs the expression samayasyānupākarmam. Manu VIII. 5 employs the first expressioṇ Manu (VIII. 218-219) has both names in view, when he says 'I shall now declare the rules applicable to those who violate samayas (conventions). He who having entered into a compact (samvid) under (the sanction of) an oath with the inhabitants of a village or a district or with a group of traders or other persons breaks it through greed should be banished from the kingdom by the king.' In Āp. Dh. S. I. 1. 1. 2 and II 4. 8 13 the word 'samaya' ¹ is employed in the sense of 'convened doctrine'. The same word is also used in the sense of 'agreement' as in Yāj. I 61 (gāndharvah samayānunmahah) In this title it means 'the acceptance of a certain rule or convention arrived at by many', as explained by ² Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 219. It signifies a local or caste usage or convention made by groups of people (such as guilds and corporations) binding on all members that form or join the several groupṣ The Amarakosa holds that ācāra and samvid are among the several meanings of samaya. Medhātithi explains that, if the inhabitants of a village come to a decision that they would oppose the inhabitants of a neighbouring village who were indulging in grazing their cattle in the pastures of the former village or diverting the watercourses, and that if in doing so or a suit were filed before the king, all should III } be of one mind, that any one of those who encouraged this decision would be liable to be punished if he backed out of it through some inducement offered by the headman of the other village. Nār. XIII. 1 explains that samayu means the rules (or conventions) settled among heretics, naigamus³ and the like. Yāj II. 192 and Nār. XIII. 2 provide that the conventions of guilds, naigamas, heretics, śreṇis, pūgas, ganas and in towns and districts should be enforced by the king and their traditional mode of conducting their business should be protecteḍ Some remarks have already been made on guilds and corporations above (pp. 156–57 notes 196–198). Vide also H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 66–69 for the guilds and corporations and the meanings of words like śreṇi, pūgu, gaṇa etc. Some further informa- tion is added here. The Sṃ C. (II p. 223) has a very⁴ interes- ting note illustrating the various conventions of several groups and its remarks are copied verbatim by the V. P. pp. 332-333. It says: ‘Even heretics have certain rules made for the benefit of their monasterieṣ Among naigamas there is a practice that those who disregard messages brought by servants wearing a specific jacket (as a uniform) should be fineḍ Śreṇis are guilds of craftsmen such as weaverṣ They have rules that certain articles are to be sold only by a certain guild and by no other. Pūgas are groups of elephant riders and horse riderṣ’ Vratas is defined by Kāt. as a body of persons armed with various weapons, while the Mahābhāṣya on Pāṇini V. 2. 21 (vratena jīvati) explains it as a ‘group of men of several castes and several occupations who make a living by relying on their formidable bodies’. Acc. to the Mit. heretics are those like the Bauddhas who do not regard the Veda as authoritative. Gana means, acc. to Mit ‘an assemblage of armed persons subsisting by follow- ing one occupation’, while Kat (680) says it is a corporation of brāhmaṇaṣ In the Rājāt II. 132 reference is made to corpora- tions of purohitas at temples and tīrthas (sacred places). The Sṃ C states that among pūgas and vrātas there is a convention that they must go to battle all together and not separately. Among ganas there is a usage that the lobes of the ear (of a child) are to be pierced on the 5th day or in the fifth year from birth. Among mahājanas in a settlement of brāhmaṇas there is a convention that a brāhmaṇa repairing to them for collecting fees to be paid to his teacher (at the close of Vedic study) should be honoured (i e. should be paid some contribution). In certain districts there is a usage that either the seller or the buyer should keep in his hand 1/6 of the price (probably for finding out whether the article is useful for the purpose in hand and resiling from the bargain if it is not). In forts or capitals there is a rule that corn taken out of it by a person with him elsewhere should not be sold by hiṃ In villages there is a rule that in pastures no digging would be alloweḍ In the hamlets inhabited by abhiras there is a convention that for adultery by a male or female there is to be no fine. It does credit to the ancient writers on dharmaśāstra that they were tolerant enough to require the king, whatever his own religious persuasion might be, to honour and enforce the usages of even heretics among themselveṣ The only requirement was that the enforcement of their usages must not be opposed to the interest of the country or the capital and must not cause commotion and must not be plainly immoral⁵ (Nār XIII. 4-5 and 7 and Medhātithi on Manu VIII. 220) Yāj (II. 188-192) lays down the following rules: there should be a committee (of two, three or five, acc. to Br.)⁶ to look after the business of the guilds &c ( called kāryacintaka ) who should be religious, pure, not covetous and all members should carry out what they decide upon; when the committee members approach the king on some business of their guild he should bestow on them gifts and honour theṃ Whatever is obtained by any one sent on the business of the group must be handed over by him to the heads of the group (also Br. in S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 349 verse 22 )⁷ and if he does not do so he should be fined eleven times as much. Whoever goes against the heads of the group that are working for its benefit should be punished in the first amercement (by the group itself, acc. to Sṃ C. II. p 224). Kāt. (677) states the general rule that whatever is obtained (by the committee or advisers of the group) or is saved by them or whatever debts are incurred by them for their group and whatever they obtain through the by them for their group and whatever they obtain through the king's favour should be shared equally by all (members of the group). Kāt. (674-675) provides that whatever debt was professedly incurred by the committee for the group but was misappropriated by them or applied to their individual purposes must be paid by them and that those who subsequently join the groups already formed become equally entitled to the property and liable for the debts previously acquired or incurreḍ Manu VIII. 220 and Br. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 348 v. 14) provide a fine of six niskas of four suvarnas each (or six niskas and four suvarpas) for him who falls out with his associateṣ Kāt (671) provides that that member (of a group) who opposes what is reasonable, who gives no scope to (i. e. obstructs or persistently interrupts) a speaker (in a meeting of the group) or who speaks absurdly should be made to pay the first amercement. Yāj. II. 187 prescribes forfeiture of all property and banishment for him who misappropriates the property of the group or corporation or who violates the conventions made by the group (or the king). As stated by the Mit this and other sentences depended upon the nature and gravity of the offence and the capacity of the offender⁸.

Krayavikrayānusaya (repentance after purchase or sale). Manu VIII. 222 and Kāt. III 15 regard this as one title of law. But Nār. (XI and XII) splits this into two titles viz. vikrīyāsampra dāna (non-delivery of a thing after it is sold for a price) and krītānusaya (repentance after buying). Manu states the general rule that whenever a person after buying or selling anything repents of having done so, he may return or take back that thing within ten days Nār XI 2 states that property is of two kinds in this world viz. movable and immovable and that all property is designated as panya (saleable) in rules about purchase and sale. According to Yāj II. 254, Nār XI. 4-5, Viṣṇu Dh S. V 127 ⁹, if a man sells property and does not deliver it to the purchaser, he should be made to deliver it to the purchaser together with profits (between the time of sale and delivery) and if it is movable together with the price of profits arising¹⁰ from it (such as milk in the case of a cow) Viṣṇu Dh S V 128 prescribes a fine of 100 panas against the vendor. Kaut III. 15 prescribes a fine of 12 panas against the vendor who after selling a thing does not deliver it and also against a buyer who having pur- chased does not take delivery of it, except when the thing itself is defective or is lost by act of king or theft or by fire or flood or unless the transaction was for inadequate price or brought about in distress ¹¹ If the article sold is not deliver- ed by the vendor after demand by the vendee and it is injured, destroyed by fire or stolen, the loss will fall on the vendor (Nār. XI. 6, Viṣṇu Dh. S V. 129, Yāj II. 256). These rules apply when the vendor does not feel repentance for having sold the thing, but if he feels repentance then Manu VIII. 222 will apply and the vendor may pay back the price and recover the article within ten days ¹² from the sale Kāt. (684) provides the same rule. No one, either buyer or vendor, can rescind the sale after ten days and if any one uses force in recovering the article sold or bought after that period the king should fine him 600 panas Manu VIII 228 extends these rules about repentance and recovery within ten days to all transactions whatever. Kāt. (685) prescribes that the period of ten days for repentance is allowed to vendors and vendees only in the case of land, and that the period is 12 days when the parties to sale of land are sapindas of one another and that in other cases the period is even shorter.¹³ Yāj. II. 257, Nār. XI. 7–8, Br. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 350 verse 4) provide that when a vendor having sold a thing to one man for a price received sells it to another or having concealed the defects of an article sells it as free from defects he should be made to return double the price to the purchaser and a fine equal to double the price to the king.¹⁴ The above rules apply where the purchaser has paid the price, but if there is a mere agree- ment and no price is paid, then the vendor or vendee is guilty of no wrong if he resiles from the bare agreement to sell or buy unless they have made an express stipulation that the agree- ment cannot be rescinded (Nār. XI. 10). When at the time of the agreement for sale, the vendee pays something by way of ear- nest, then if the sale goes off through the fault of the vendor, the latter has to return to the vendee double of the earnest;¹⁵ but if the purchaser does not finally take it he loses the thing and also the earnest. Nār. XII. 1 prescribes that when a vendee after having purchased a thing for a price repents of the pur- chase that is the title of law called ‘ressoission of purchase.’ Nār XII. 2 prescribes that if the purchaser thinks that he has made a bad bargain he may return the thing purchased to the vendor on the same day in an undamaged condition (and may receive back the price paid); but if he returns it on the 2nd or 3rd day after the purchase (including the day of purchase) he will have to lose respectively one-thirtieth or one-fifteenth of the price and after the third day he cannot return the thing at all (Nār XII. 3). But Yāj. II 177 and Nār. XII. 5–6 lay down the following periods for examination of things purchased, viz one, three, five, seven, ten days, half a month and one month respectively in the case of iron (and clothes), milch cattle, beasts of burden, jewels (precious stones, pearls and corals), all sorts of grain, a male slave and a female slave It must be supposed that these verses contain exceptions to the general rule in Manu VIII 222 cited above. Kaut. (III. 15) allows only one night, three nights, five nights and seven nights for repentance to traders, husbandmen, cowherds, the mixed castes and higher castes and provides that where the articles sold are perishable a very short time only may be alloweḍ The above rules apply only when the purchaser made no examination at the time of purchase Nār.¹⁶ XII 4 and Br. (S. B. E vol 33 p. 350 verse 3) recommend that a purchaser should himself closely examine an article before buying it and also show it to others in order to find out its defects and good qualities and provide that when he has approved of an article after close examination he cannot return it to the vendor Vyāsa provides that hides, fuel, bricks, yarn, grain, intoxicants, fluids, gold, inferior metals (like lead and tin) and other wealth should be carefully examined then and there i. e. when once bought after close examination none of these can be returned even if some defect¹⁷ is found therein Nār. (XII. 5-6) cited above contains exceptions to this Nār XII. 7 gives an example of a purchase being not liable to be rescinded when a defective article is purchased with open eyes viz. a worn garment which is soiled with dirt and is in ragged condition cannot be returned to the vendor if it was in that state at the time of the purchase i e the maxim 'caveat emptor' applieṣ If a purchaser does not take delivery of the thing sold to him, the vendor may sell it again to another¹⁸ and if the thing is lost through act of God or the king the loss falls on the buyer alone (Yāj. II. 255, Nār XI 9) Kāty (692) provides¹⁹ that what has been sold by a lunatic or an intoxicated person or through intimidation or for an inadequate price or by one who is dependent or by an idiot should be relinquished by the purchaser; it still belongs to the seller. Kāt. (705-706) lays down a novel rule to find out what is adequate or inadequate price. What ²⁰ is decided by the neighbours assembled together, who know (the land &c and its value) and who are afraid of committing sin, as the price of fields, gardens, houses and the like, of bipeds and quadrupeds, is declared to be the proper price; a price which is less or more than it by one-eighth is declared to be improper; what is sold for an improper price may be annulled even after a hundred yearṣ Kāt. (704) states that when the owner of a field absconds together with the surety ²¹ for the payment of the land tax, the judges of the court may order a sale for recovery of the tax and that such a sale may be set aside up to ten years and a compromise or exchange up to three generations, if it is inequitable. Bhāradvāja provides that when taxes are not paid both by the tax-payer and his surety even when called upon to do so, then the king may order a charge on the land or sale of the lanḍ

Uktālabha is defined as a conditional sale, where a man borrows only a portion of the proper price of a land and stipulates that he would return the money on a certain day and that if he did not do so his ownership over the land would come to an end ²². Kāt (711) adds that a sale of the uktālabha kind will be valid if it is for more than half (the proper price of the land), provided more than ten years have elapsed (after the period fixed for repayment ) An avakraya⁸⁷⁴ becomes valid after possession for over three generations and a ( regular ) purchase by mutual agreement becomes valid at once Kat. ( 712 ) further⁸⁷⁵ prescribes that the unpaid purchase money carries compound interest after demand if no time is fixed for payment, but, if a time is fixed, then only the balance has to be paid up to the end of that period Br provides that in all sales, the sale deed should mention the wells and trees ( on the land ), the water and ways and that the crops, trees and fruits, wells, tanks and house standing on the land sold would belong to the vendor if they are not put down in the deed of sale.⁸⁷⁶ According to Hārīta the rules of sales are to be extended to exchangeṣ⁸⁷⁷

From the Rajataranginī VI 41 it appears that a fraudulent purchaser, who, by means of the heavy bribe of 1000 dīnārus, induced the officially authorized scribe to include a well in the sale of a house when it was intended to be excluded from it, was banished from the country by the king, his property being confiscated and given over to the cheated vendor. The Vyavahāranirnaya, after quoting Br. and Vyāsa, very lucidly explains what is meant by sale, purchase, exchange &c. Gold and the like which a man desires to render or pay is called price, while land, house and the like are said to be 'panya' ( saleable thing ) Purchase means acceptance of a thing pre- ceded by the offering of a price ( either paid or agreed to be paid ) ; sale is the acceptance of a price preceded by the offering of a saleable thing Parivrtti or parivartana is the acceptance of an article for an article of the same kind; if there is a disparity in value between the two articles exchanged the exchange is called 'avakraya' ; when there is an exchange of two articles of different kinds but of the same value it is called vinimaya ²⁷ The Vyavahāranirnaya makes elaborate provi- sions for sale of land at the order of the king for non-payment of land tax It quotes Prajāpati ( p. 350 ) to the effect that the purchaser at such a sale must offer half or at least one-fourth of the real price of the field and that the original owner could get back his property sold for the royal dues by paying the full price to the purchaser up to three generationṣ Other elaborate rules on the same subject are passed over here for reasons of space These provisions indicate that ownership in cultivated fields belonged to individuals and that the State had only the right to levy taxes Vide H of Dh. vol. II pp 865-869 and Kāt quoted above ( on p. 196 ) for a discussion of the theory of the State's ownership of all landṣ Taking into consideration the Pūrvamīmāmsā texts, the Vyavahāramayūkha and the verses of Kāt, and others it appears that the State was deemed to be the owner of all lands as a general proposition, but that where individuals or bodies of persons had been in long possession of lands that they cultivated, the ownership of the State was qualified and restricted only to the recovery of a tax or share of crops and that individuals and groups that had cultivated lands in their possession were regarded practically as owners of the land subject to the liability to pay land tax and to the right of the State to sell the land for non-payment of tax. The Vyavahāranirṇaya quotes Br and another smṛti text that śūdras, persons excommunicated for grave sins ( patita ), cāṇḍālas and desperate characters cannot be allowed to possess the lands of a brāhmaṇa by sale, partition or in lieu of wages, ²⁸ the same work further quotes Vyāsa, Bhāradvāja and Br. that when land is sold there is a right of preemption in favour of full brothers, sapindas, samānodakas, sagotras, neighbours, creditors and one's co-villagers in order. ²⁹

Gifts of immovables were looked upon in very ancient times with disfavour, though they were made even in the times of the Upaniṣads Vide H. of Dh vol II pp 740-41 But sales of land must have been rarer still in ancient times owing to the patriarchal and joint family systemṣ The Mit on Yāj II 114 quotes a verse forbidding the sale of immovable property; ³⁰ but sales of lands are mentioned in many copperplate grantṣ Vide Paharpur plate grant of Gupta year 159 i e 478-79 A. D. in E, I. vol 20 p. 59 (where one kulyāvāpa of land is stated to have been sold for two dināras to a brāhmaṇa and his wife named Rāmī by the city council for the provision of the worship with sandal-wood paste &c of the divine arhats at arhāṭa), E. I vol 17 p 345 (grant of the time of Kumāra- gupta I in Gupta year 113), the Damodarpur plates (E I vol. 15 p 113), Faridpur plates (Ind Ant, vol. 39 p 193), E I vol 18 p 74 From these records of the 5th and 6th centuries A. D. it appears that land was owned by private individuals or by joint families or by the village community or by the king and there was a fixed procedure when land was to be sold, that the purchaser approached the District Officers who consulted the pustapālas that kept a record of titles and that the villagers and headmen were consulted and asked to mark off the land to be solḍ It appears that the smṛtis recommended that sales should be clothed in the formalities of gifts, probably because gifts were frequent and sales were not A smṛti quoted by the Mit (on Yāj. II 114) states ‘land passes (i. e. is trans- ferred) with the assent of the villagers, the agnatic relations, the neighbours, the co-sharers and with the offering of gold and water’ The Mit explains that these³¹ are not absolutely neces- sary formalities of a sale, but that they are recommended for the sake of greater caution and convenience, that the assent of the villagers is to be secured for the publication of the transaction of sale, as a text says that acceptance, particularly of im- movables, should be made openly, that the neighbours’ assent should be secured for preventing boundary disputes, that the assent of agnates and co-sharers is desired for making it easy to complete the transaction, that it `does not follow that without the assent of these the sale of land is not valid or complete. Water and gold are to be offered because gifts being highly commended, a sale should be clothed outwardly with the same formalitieṣ Vide Dr. P. N. Sen’s ‘Hindu Jurisprudence’ pp. 76-78 for the opposite procedure of the ancient Roman Law that gifts were to be clothed with the formalities of sale. For water and gold in the case of gifts vide above under dattapradānika.

Svāmipālavāda (disputes between the owner of cattle and herdsman who is engaged to look after them ) In ancient times this must have been a prominent source of litigation in a predominantly agricultural country like India Nār. appears to have included this title under vetanasyānupā-kuma. Yāj. II 164, Nār. IX. 11 provide that the cowherd has to bring back to the owner in the evening the cows ( and other domestic animals ) handed over to him in the morning by the owner, after grazing them in the pastures and making them drink water. Manu VIII. 230 says that during the day the responsibility for the safety of the cattle rests on the herdsman and during the night on the owner provided they are in the latter's house. When there is no express agreement as to wages Nar IX. 10 and Br (S. B. E. 33 p. 346 verse 19) prescribe that a cowherd⁸⁸³ will get as his wages all the milk of the cows tended by him on every eighth day plus a heifer (two years old) every year out of every one hundred cows tended by him or a milch cow with her calf every year for every two hundred cows looked after by hiṃ Manu VIII 231 provides another method when no wages are fixed by agreement viz. a hired herdsman, who is paid with milk, may milk as hire the best cow out of ten with the consent of the owner. It is the duty of the cowherd to struggle as much as in him lies to protect the cows from accidents and if he is unable to do so he must quickly inform the owner (Nār. IX. 12). Br (S. B. E 33 p 346 verse 20) states⁸⁸⁴ that the cowherd shall save cattle from the danger of worms (or reptiles), robbers, tigers and from caverns and pits and that he should try to protect them to the best of his ability, should call out for help or inform his master. If the herdsman does not struggle to protect the cows, nor raise a hue and cry nor inform his master he must make good the value of the cow lost and must pay a fine to the king (Nār. IX. 13). Manu VIII 232 and 235, Yaj II 164-165, Viṣṇu Dh S V⁸⁸⁵ 137-138, Nar (IX. 14-15) provide that if a cow or other domestic animal strays or is killed by worms (or reptiles) or slain by dogs (and wild animals) or dies by falling into a pit or by any negligent act of the herdsman, he himself shall make good the loss, if he did not exert himself to prevent this happening or if goats and sheep are surrounded by wolves and carried away while the herdsman does not hasten to their help he shall bear the responsibility for the losṣ In these cases the herdsman has also to pay a fine of 12½ panas ³⁵ to the king (Yāj. II 165) Ap. Dh. S II. 11. 28. 6 makes ³⁶ the herdsman liable to pay the price if an animal in his charge dies or is lost (by theft &c ). Manu VIII. 233, 236, Nār IX 16, Vyāsa state exceptions to the above viz where an animal is carried away ³⁷ by robbers though the herdsman raised a cry, he would not be liable to make good the loss provided he gave information to his master at the proper time (immediately after the animal is carried away ) and proper place; or when the herdsman himself is seized or the village is attacked or the country is invaded, the herdsman would not be liable for loss or seizure of any animal under his charge; and also where, while the herd is grazing in a proper order near a forest, a wolf suddenly kills an animal. Manu VIII 234, Nār. IX. 17 state that when cattle die through act of God or king or die without any fault of his while in charge of a herdsman, he has to free himself from liability or from the suspicion of himself having ³⁸ carried away 'surreptitiously the animal by producing before his master their ears, skin, tails, bladders, tendons and yellow bile or by showing their limbs (viz. their characteristic marks ). Vyāsa states that if a herdsman, who has received his wages, abandons cattle in an untenanted forest and moves about in the village he should be fined by the king. ³⁹

Yaj. II. 166 provides that a portion of land should be set apart at the discretion of the villagers or that of the king as pasture for cows Manu VIII. 237, Yaj. II. 167 prescribe that on all sides round a village, a khavāta and a town an uncultivated space for pastures (between it and the fields) shall be kept respectively of 100, 200, 400 dhanus⁴⁰ in extent. Kat (666) prescribes that the owner of a field (which is near a forest) should construct a high paling before the crops have grown, for animals (or deer) when they have once tasted the sweet⁴¹ (crops) can be warded off with difficulty. Manu VIII, 239 = (Matsya 227 25), Nāṛ. XIV 41 prescribe that a hedge should be constructed for a field that is near a public way so high that a camel cannot look inside over it or a horse or cattle cannot jump over or so thick that a dog or boar should not be able to thrust its head inside it through holeṣ Manu VIII. 238 (= Matsyapurāṇa 227 26), Yaj II. 162, Nār. XIV 40 provide that if a field situated near a village or a pasture or near a public road is not protected by a hedge and cattle straying into it cause loss, the herdsman is not to be held guilty. It is provided by Āp. Dh. S II. 11 28 5, Manu VIII. 240, Nār. XIV. 28, Kat 664-665 that if cattle enter into fields,⁴² parks or pastures that are situated near a village or a public road and are enclosed by a hedge, they may be seized or beaten off, the herdsman is to be fined (a hundred panas). Yaj II. 159-161, Manu VIII. 241, Nār. XIV 28-29, Kat. 667 and others lay down that where cattle enter fields (not near a village or road) and cause loss, the herdsman is to be fined or whipped, the owner of the cattle is to make good the loss and I] pay the fine prescribed and the fines vary e g Yāj II. 159 prescribes fines of 2, 4 and 8 māsas respectively when a goat or a cow or a she-buffalo strays and causes loss of crops, while (667) prescribes only ¼ pana in the case of cows and help and ¼ in the case of she-buffaloes Vide Gaut. XII 19–22 and Kaut III. 10 also. Those who purposely set cattle to eat or destroy crops were to be punished as thieves (Nār XIV. 34)

Ancient India entertained tender feelings for certain animals and in certain circumstances Nār. XIV 30, Yāj II. 163, Manu VIII. 242, Kaut III 10 ⁴³ and Usanas provide that cows within ten days after calving, a stud bull, a horse, an elephant, animals let loose in honour of ancestors or deities, and cattle that have strayed from the herd or that have no herdsman to look after them and have met with an accident are to be warded off when causing harm to crops, but the owner is not to be fineḍ Usanas ⁴⁴ states that the reason for this leniency is that horses and elephants are protectors of people Aparārka (p 771) explains that this exemption applies only to the king’s horses and elephantṣ Usanas adds that (owners of) cows should not be fined when they cause some loss at the time of festivals and śrāddhaṣ The great veneration for cows led Usanas to lay down that he who requires the owner of a cow to reimburse the loss of crops that are eaten up or destroyed will find that his pitṛs and the gods do not receive the offerings made ⁴⁵ by him This is explained by the Par. M. III. p 385 as referring to crops in fields near a village not enclosed by a hedge and by the Madanaratna to crops eaten at the time of śrāddha Br., Yāj II. 161 and Nār. XIV. 38 require the owner of the cow to reimburse the owner of the crops for the loss as settled by the neighbourṣ Vide under ‘steya’ for cases in which there is no offence of theft even if a person takes certain things belonging to another without his permissioṇ