________________
132
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(Vol. XXV.
must be obtained from the temple signed by the accountant and the kanmi. The signatories to this inscription are a Saivāchārya, two Sivabrāhmaṇas and Mudal-Kanakku (the treasury accountant). At the end, it is said that the document was caused to be made by Sastra-Bhattāraka, son of Jaţādhara the ornament of the village of Angārakamangalam. It must have been on this occasion that the large Tiruppūvaņam plates, wherein the inclusion of the three dēvadāna villages in Rājagambbīra-chaturvvēdimangalam is specified, must have been engraved and kept along with the supplementary plate as its mülasāsana, Henoe, it is that we find that all the plates are written in the same hand and are in the possession of the Tiruppūvanam temple.
Ordinarily the State did not interfere with temple properties. This is made plain by such statements as "ivv-ūrgalir=palan-divadānam palsichchandam...... nikki” found in the large Tiruppuvanam plates. It is also clear from the fact that the Tiruppuvanam temple, in spite of the inclusion of three of its devadāna lands in the newly formed brahmadēya, had been regularly getting the kadamai from them fron, the date of the grant of the brahmadeya, which, as we know from the large set, was the eleventh year opposite to the thirteenth year of the reign of Jațāvarman Kulasēkbara I (A.D. 1204) till the tenth year of the reign of Märavarman Sundara-Pāndya I (A.D. 1226). When, owing to any special reasons, dēvadānas had to be taken away and turned to other purposes—here for forming the brahmadēya—the original incumbents were not deprived of their income but were adequately compensated. The king's brother-in-law Alagapperumal ni ust have been appointed to hold an enquiry and settle the compensation to be awarded to the dispossessed owner of the resumed dēvadāna. The result of his enquiry is embodied in this inscrip. tion.
The first inscription being a State document is signed by State officials, and the second, being one issued by the temple, bears the signatures of temple officials. The temples in those days bad regularly constituted bodies of their own to see to their management. These bodies were known as unnāfigaiyar or unnäligai-sabhaiyar. I have referred to the constitutional character of the bodies known as Pan-Māhēsvaras in the case of Siva temples and Sri-Vaishnavas in the case of Vishņu temples elsewhere. Here we may note some of the numerous officers that were employed in temple bodies. They are (1) Kanakku-Mudal or Mudal-Kanakku, (2) Kanakku, or Karanattan, (3) Dëvakanmi, (4) Stänächārya or Saivācharya, (5) Pújikkum-Nambi and other Nambis, (6) Koyil-Nāyakam, (7) Tiruvilaichchinai-kankäni, (8) Por-Pandāri, (9) Sādana (Sabana). Pandāri, (10) Sri-Māhēgvara-Kankāni, (11) Srikäryam-Seyvār, (12) Śrīkoyil. Väriyam-seyvār or Vāriya-Perumakkal, eto.
In transactions in which the temple is concerned, some of these officials affix their signatures. In a record of the time of Kulottunga I five temple officials, viz., Māhē svara-Kapkāni, Sivabrāh. mana, Pujikkum-Nambi, Karanattān and a Pan-Māhēsvara have attested. Another record gives ten of the different officials noticed above. A third document is addressed to Sriköyil-vāriyamSeyvār, Dēvarkanmis, Pandāris and Karanattāp.It is consistent with this custom that the second document issued by the temple of Tiruppuvaņam to the assembly of
1 See above, p. 111, text-lines 69 f. .8.1. 1., Vol. VII, Nos. 91, 168 & 835,
Above, Vol. XXII, p. 275. .8, 1. I., Vol. IV, No. 427; also Nos. 293, 296 & 986 of Vol. V and No. 33 & 38 of Vol. VI .8.1. 1., Vol. V, No. 473. .8. 1. 1., Vol. IV, No. 427. * No. 33 of 8.1.1., Vol. VI.
