________________
AUMUST, 1906.]
MISCELLANEA.
233
contemporary. Besides, they were both natives of the same place nearly; the Shiva was born at Shiyali, and the Vaishnava at a village not far off. The dispute is said to have taken a curious forni. It was not a religicus question, but was only one of title to ability in composing poetry. The Alvar's disciples went about shouting "here comes ndlukaviperumal (he that excels ia composing the four kinds of poetry)." The Adiyâr's disciples objected and ushered the Alvar to their preceptor's presence. The Ålvâr was asked to compose a leural, and burst out with a decad in praise of Sri Rama of Shiyali, beginning with “Orulura!" (unparallelled dwarf), a sense entirely different to that which the Âdiyâr would have given to the word. The story further goes on to state that Sambanda was satisfied and not only acquiesced in the titles of the Alvar, but even made him a present of the trident he used to carry. It is of no use to enter into the details of the story, as, so far, it has merely led to annoyance, but one particular, however, cannot be passed over here. And that is, that the Alvâr, who generally gives himself one of the titles in the concluding stanza of each decad, breaks out at the end of this one into a rather provoking and assertive enumeration of all of them.
It would appear, therefore, after all has been said, that tradition combined with the result of the historical research, as far as it bears upon the subject, would allot Tirumangai Ålvår to the earlier half of the 8th century after Christ; and thus possibly he was a younger contemporary of Tirujñana Samba, and perhaps an elder of Sundaramurti Nayanar.
MISCELLANEA. A SUCCESSION CUSTOM AMONG SIKH CHIEFS CUSTOMARY LAW REGARDING SUCCESSION IN THE PANJAB.
IN RULING FAMILIES OF THE PANJAB AT p. 21 of Sir Lepel Griffin's Law of
HILL STATES. Inheritance to Sikh Chiefships (Labore, 1869) In continuation of the article on this subject, occus the following passage:
ante, Vol. XXXIV. p. 226, I give here another The elder son loses his position should instance of the rule that the son first ruocgnised he be married subsequently to his younger
au heir, not necessarily the first-born son, is brother. The unanimous opinion of all the
entitled to succeed to the throne. This instance chiefs above referred to (P the cis-Sutlej comes from the Katoch family, a Raja of which, chiefs) was as follows:
Udd Chand, had three sons, Dilê war Chand, "If there be two uterine brothers betrothed in
Bhim Chand, and Kirpal Chand. In a rhymed two families, and if from any cause the marriage
Chronicle of the Katôch family it is recorded of the elder brother cannot take place, and the
that:parents of the girl to whom the younger brother
Doha (Couplet). is betrothed be importunate for the marriage, the
Dilwar Chand and Bhim Ohand were born father will not permit his younger son to be first
on the same day, married, because the periormance to his fore
The Rajâ heard of Bhim Chand's birth first. fathers of the funeral rites, &c, from the hands of an older son could not take place
Chaupai (Quatrain). unless he had been married prior to his
Ude reflected to himself:younger brother. The marriage of the elder
That both his sons were alike (ie., equal), must, therefore, precede. If the younger son,
"He, of whom I first heard is entitled to from the importunity of the girl's parents, be
the throne.' first married, and his older brother afterwards, then the performance of the funeral obsequies to
Doha (Couplet). his forefathers are prohibited to him, and it may
When Bhim Chand became Raja, be said the younger takes the place of the
Dildwar Chand became a subordinate Raja. elder by reason of his being first married.”
I have, so far, not been able to obtain a copy of I have fniled to trace any such custom in the
the original manuscript of which the above is published records of the Punjab Customary Law.
a translation. The limitation of the present rule to uterino brothers, if correct, is peculiar.
H. A. ROSE H. A. Rose. 5th December 1905.
4th December, 1005.
