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 . _