2023-02-17 20:21:55 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
MADHURĀVIJAYAM
practised by certain people who took away the valuable
belongings of the temple. The matter had not been
found out until very late, and by the time it was found
out, the culprits had all died. But the king confiscated
their lands and dwellings and made them over to the
temple. The same inscription refers to the sale of lands
and houses belonging to another private individual who
had been punished for committing "a very serious state
offence".
22
10
Rājanārāyaṇa had also to devote a good part of his
time to the settlement of disputes. The most serious of
these was that the temple servants called Ishaibhattali-
yilār, Dēvaradiyār and Padiyilār did not agree among
themselves regarding the order of precedence in their
service to the temple. The next in importance was a
long standing dispute between the villagers of Uttara-
merūr and Tiruppulivanam.¹0 The disputants were not
amenable to any agreement for a long time. The dis-
pute itself concerned river-irrigation. There was a
canal irrigating Uttaramerur, and feeding the tank of
Tirupulivanam. The inhabitants of both the villages
quarrelled about their respective rights over the con-
trol of the canal. The matter was finally settled
amicably by arbitration and it was agreed that the
canal should irrigate Tiruppulivanam, Mappandar,
Pundi and Uttaramerūr.
were removed by the Tulukkar and appropriated. Such of the pro-
perty as had escaped their clutches (including a metal lamp stand)
was stolen and similar acts of treachery were practised against god
by certain private individuals. The Maheswaras and the trustees of
the temple together with the agent of Bhuvanēkabāhudeva instituted
enquiries into the matter in the Vyakaranadāna Mandapa.
9. A.R.E., 212 of 1912.
10. A.R.E., 200 of 1923.
practised by certain people who took away the valuable
belongings of the temple. The matter had not been
found out until very late, and by the time it was found
out, the culprits had all died. But the king confiscated
their lands and dwellings and made them over to the
temple. The same inscription refers to the sale of lands
and houses belonging to another private individual who
had been punished for committing "a very serious state
offence".
22
10
Rājanārāyaṇa had also to devote a good part of his
time to the settlement of disputes. The most serious of
these was that the temple servants called Ishaibhattali-
yilār, Dēvaradiyār and Padiyilār did not agree among
themselves regarding the order of precedence in their
service to the temple. The next in importance was a
long standing dispute between the villagers of Uttara-
merūr and Tiruppulivanam.¹0 The disputants were not
amenable to any agreement for a long time. The dis-
pute itself concerned river-irrigation. There was a
canal irrigating Uttaramerur, and feeding the tank of
Tirupulivanam. The inhabitants of both the villages
quarrelled about their respective rights over the con-
trol of the canal. The matter was finally settled
amicably by arbitration and it was agreed that the
canal should irrigate Tiruppulivanam, Mappandar,
Pundi and Uttaramerūr.
were removed by the Tulukkar and appropriated. Such of the pro-
perty as had escaped their clutches (including a metal lamp stand)
was stolen and similar acts of treachery were practised against god
by certain private individuals. The Maheswaras and the trustees of
the temple together with the agent of Bhuvanēkabāhudeva instituted
enquiries into the matter in the Vyakaranadāna Mandapa.
9. A.R.E., 212 of 1912.
10. A.R.E., 200 of 1923.