Edited and
translated by Rajan Khatiwoda
in collaboration with
Ramhari Timalsina
Created: 2016-10-06;
Last modified: 2018-11-23
For the metadata of the document, click here
[1r]
1श्रीदुर्गाज्यू\ 1श्रीगुरु[1r]
Glorious Durgā!
The venerable guru – 21
Thrice Venerable Mahārāja Jaṅga Bahādura RāṇāG.C.B., Prime Minister and Commander-in-Chief, [he who holds] a formidable club in the form of his arms etc. – 12
Hail! [A decree] of him who is shining with manifold rows of eulogy [such as] ‘The venerable crest-jewel of the multitude of mountain kings’ and Naranārāyaṇa (an epithet of Kṛṣṇa) etc., high in honour, the venerable supreme king of great kings, the thrice venerable great king, Surendra Vikrama Śāha, the brave swordsman, the divine king always triumphant in war.
Āge: [addressed] to -1- (i.e., Mahārāja Jaṅga Bahādura Rāṇā)
The [following] details [regarding the partition of property amongst your family members] came to be known to us after you had [the matter] brought to our attention and requested [my assent to it] [as follows]: "The entire property of my household, I have divided up with due consideration on my part (merā tajabījale)—what there is in cash, land grants (birtā); homesteads and unirrigated upland fields (pākho) in the Madhesa (i.e., Terai), Pāhāḍa (i.e., hill regions) and Nepāla (i.e., the Kathmandu Valley); valuables, [other] land, commodities, four-footed animals and birds—assigning shares among the ritually married (vivāhitā) and brought into household [without ritual marriage] (lyāitā) wives, those venerable Mahārānīs and concubines who have given birth to sons and brought them up, and to the venerable Mahārānīs and concubines (bhitrenī) who have not given birth to sons, and to my sons; and a share for marriage expenses to my unmarried sons, a share for jewels and clothing to daughters-in-laws and a share for marriage expenses and dowries to daughters, (calling upon) -2- (i.e., the venerable guru), -3-3 and relatives and high royal officials (bhāībhāradāra) [as] witnesses.
It is apparent that you have done the partition appropriately. We have endorsed the partition you have done. Accordingly, make a deed of partition [in the form] of a rukkā [issued by] you. Once you issue the deed-of-partition rukkā in accordance with the order we have given [to you], we and our descendants shall not entertain (lit. "hear") [any complaint], even if some [beneficiary] comes to complain to us, saying, "I received a small[er] [share than what I deserve] according to the law (ain), while such and such a person received a bigger [share]." Nor shall anybody else entertain [such a complaint]. We [hereby] issue [this] lālamohara [in the form] of an order, as follows: "Carry out the division of your property in accordance with the deed of partition."
Saturday, the 9th of the dark fortnight of [the month of] Āśvina in the [Vikrama] year era 1920 (1864 CE). Auspiciousness.
This document is of some importance for understanding legal practice in 19th-century Nepal. The Mulukī Ain of 1854 (MA) invested the courts with absolute autonomy. To safeguard such autonomy, the MA explicitly empowers judges to hand down decisions uninfluenced by any outside authority. For example, it states: "Judges of the courts, [such as] ḍiṭṭhās, bicārīs [and] heads of ṭhānā [offices], shall handle lawsuits in accordance with the law. Even if an [oral] order or an order to handle a lawsuit [in a way that] deviates from the law is given by the king or prime minister through a lālamohora or daskhat, [judges] shall not obey it. Lawsuits shall be handled in accordance with the law. They, [the judges,] shall not be fined for or convicted of having committed a crime based on the accusation of having disobeyed such a lālamohara, rukkā, oral order or pramāṅgī" (MA-KM: 45 §2, p. 218).
This lālamohara demonstrates, however, that limits were placed on the right of an individual to register complaints, even if made in accordance with the law. Such a contradictory regulation was incorporated into the MA of 1870, which cut back on much of the authority and immunity of the judiciary and placed high-ranking government officials above the law. The following section demonstrates this: "If the king, a minister, general, cautariyā, [royal priest] or colonel, kājī, sardāra, high royal officials (bhāradāra) or the like gives an order to the chief, ḍiṭṭhā, bicārī, amālī, dvāre or the like of an aḍḍā, gauḍā, adālata or ṭhānā to reverse a court decision (lit. to let the winner lose and let the loser win) in a way that is not in accord with the law, the latter shall request [the former’s indulgence], saying: "We have taken an oath [to abide by] the dharma. Therefore, we cannot do such injustice as will lead us to hell." If the order [continues] to be given even after such a request is made [to reconsider], [and] in spite of the fact that it is not in conformity with the law, the [chief etc.] shall request [as follows]: "Issue a lālamohara or sanada [to the same effect and] I shall act accordingly." If a lālamohara or sanada is issued, he shall do as written in the sanada [or lālamohara]" (MA 1870: p. 77 §2).