________________
No. 26.)
KHAROD INSCRIPTION OF RATNADEVA III-CHEDI SAMVAT 933.
159
of sa to cha and va to ma is common. The Chāhaminas of Nádol were hereditary eneties of the Paramaras of Malwa; Chāhamāna Sobhita, son of Lakshmana is styled lord of Dhară in an inBoription which showed that he had defeated Vākpati Muñja, the king of Dhari, and become for some time the lord of the city and the surtounding country. Sobhita's son, Balirāja, again, is said to have routed the army of Muñjaraja.. Chåhamana Anahills of the same family is said to have slain Badha, a general of king Bhoja. To avenge this defeat and death of his dandanāyaka Bhöja might have waged & war with the Chāhamana king and defeated him with the help of Süråditys of our inscription.
Though the actual construction in the record may be taken to denote that Sürāditya of the Bravanabhadra family, whose son issued the present grant, had migrated from Kanauj, it is equally possible that the family of Sūrāditya had migtated from Kanauj at an earlier date We know that the Pratiḥāras of Kanauj were sovereign lords of Gujarat for some time as is evidenced by the Wadhwăn plates of Mahīpāla and the Unā plates of Mahendrapāla. In their palmy days it is not surprising it some fortune seekers like the ancestor of Sūräditya founded a principality in Gujarāt. The name Sravanabhadra of his family denotes that it was probably a Kshatriya family like the Uttamabhadra family of Saka Ushavadata's Näsik inscription.'
The reason why this grant, though it belongs to the time of the sovereign Bhöja, does not contain the usual relief of Garuda of the Paramára family must no doubt be that the record was issued by a feudatory of Bhõja and that the latter had nothing in fact to do with the actual issuing of the grant. The Kalavaņa plates also, issued by a local authority under a feudatory of Bhoja do not contain the usual Garuda and snake seal of the Paramāras.' It must at the same time be noted that more space in the record is devoted towards the praise of the sovereign family than of the family of the actual donor of the grant.
The grant was issued on Monday, the Amavasya (sma-parvan) day of the month of Margasiras in the year 1103 of Vikramaditya. The Christian equivalent of the date, as kindly calculated for me by Mr. K. N Dikshit is most probably Monday, the 11th November 1045 A.D. taking the month as the Purnimānta and the year as a Southern Vikruma Year, which should be ordinarily prevalent in the locality in question.
No. 96-KHAROD INSCRIPTION OF RATNADEVA III-CHEDT SAMVAT 933.
BY N. P. CHAKRAVARTI. M.A.. PH.D., OUTACAMUND. This inscription is engraved on a stone slab affixed to the temple of Lakhnesvar (LakshmanBevara) in Kharod, a village in District Bilaspur, C. P., 37 miles from the district headquarters. It has been noticed 10 before but is published here for the first time. It contains 28 lines of writing covering & space of about 3' broad by 1'5" high. The size of the letters is about 1. The writing has suffered & good deal the whole way down, particularly, towards the proper left. The 1 Above, Vol. XI, p. 308.
. Above, Vols. IX, p. 71 and XI, p. 67. Above, Vol. XI, p. 68.
• Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, p. 183. . Above, Vol. IX, p. 1. • In a number of plates found of this period the donees are said to have migrated from Madhyadada.
Above, Vol. VIII, p. 78. [The recently discovered Narwal plates of Vakpati-Mufija contain references to bravagabhadra as locality from which certain Brahman dopees originated. Again, some of the names of Brahmans in the samo grant and inaditya. It is therefore not improbable that Bariditya belonged to a Brahman family originally from Sravanabhadra, that may have settled in Malwi.-Ed.)
Similarly the Kalavana plates of the feudatory of Bhojadeva do not contain the Garuda relief and other peculiar features of Paramars grante. See above, Vol. XIX, Pp, 71 .
Bp. Journ. Ind. Hist., Vol. VI, p. 226.
* Cunnlugbam. A. 8. I. R., Vols. VII, p. 901 and XVII, p. 19) Ind. Anh, Vol. XXI, pp. 91.; PNA8. W.O., 1908-04, pp. 63 .; Hiralal's Inscriptions in the Central Provinow and Boror (tad edition), pp. 1171,
