Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/636

818 PRaPHULLa The fields were not held but each householder had belonged to him definitely. in communal ownership, his separate share which This is proved by various p?ssages already quoted and, with regard to the urvara? by the three prayers of Apals, the daughter of Atri when Indra, being pleased with grant her three boons, she asked her, consented ?- him to cause three places to grow, one of which is he.r father's barren field (viii, 91, 5-6). This fact of individual ownership of the urvara land is further confirmed by a reference to the winning of lands. After getting them through the favor of' Heaven and Earth, Trassdssyu is said to have bestowed upon many the ancient gifts which include urvara?a and ks?tra?a (iv, 88, 1). The dei?y Indra is again called urvarajit (ii, gl,'l); whs?ver may be ghe meaning of jit, ig is clear gh&t, whether by conquest or as adhipati (as Sayanseharya it) he is the owner of expression urvarapati is ?ith children (iv, 41, 6), ficanee as to the nature be exercised over the lands. urv?tr?t or land acquired individual ownership. explains the urvara ?nd.. The ex- again used in connection which may have some signi- of the authority that could Thus it is evident that for cultiv&tion was held in Ksketra It seems to which is corn distinction is not so able not to press it Kshetra is another word which mesais usually field. be of wider significance than Urvara, land, i.e. cultivated field. But this certain, too far. and it would be advis- Like urvara, kshetra was also subject of individual ownership (iii, 81, 1). Eishi-Kavasha, in consoling Upsmsshrsv&s on the death of his father, alludes to & pleasant field being given to & beggar (x, 8?, 6). Surely what could-be given away to the beggar made the kdtiera subject