Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/638

two OHANDRA BIBU disti?e?on betwssu ksl?tra of a man's. "holding" and ervara portion only was one subjee of prit But as meaning all the tiel? as ?he cultivated vitality. Ks?? was as well as errare, one would fall of real ownership n?turslly the urvara portion of under, and therefore be iuoludod in, his k?tra por- tion. And if the ksh?ra was carefully mark? out and mems? the arily distinguished ex@l&n?;ion ra?her ? u rvara of one person was neeess- from timt of another. This assumes that the mesmurement was for of disting?ing tha owners of land, that of different kinds of land of nine owner. we remember This assumption tl? the is quite reasonable if of the family was the property of the father; never in the Vedic age a corporation property. H so, wh?t need was there and that the fa?ly :was jointly holding to divide one individual's ploughland from his other lands by such careful measurement ? The only oonoeiwble neee?? might have been for-ascertaining the rights of the 8rate, snd from s study of the political condition of ths time we find that this need did not exist s. From the foregoing discussion it must not bs inferred timt /?/?r? includes the wsste land ?s well. Its frequent use* in connection with cultivated la?s tends to imply titst the system of fallow waa known to the Aryans, and that all lands which were capable of cultivation or which were cl? and acquired tot cultivation came under ksh?ra, where,! uroara would imply the setusl ploughlaud, thst is, land ? actual cultivstion, thus excluding the fallow and per- h?ps the meadow lsnd. On this point it is impmsibls to be certain, specially when the word /?/?rm h? bsmi used vs? vaguely in some pa?es in the Big VeSs ?. _