svasti. śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hāritī-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśikr̥tāśeṣa-mahībhr̥tām Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-gātrāṇāṁ cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ svāsi-dhārā-namitia-ripu-nr̥pati-makuṭa-taṭa-ghaṭitāneka-maṇi-kiraṇa-rāga-rañjita-caranāravinda-yugalaḥsya Aneka-samara-saṁghaṭṭanopalabdha-vijayinaḥ śrī-maṁgi-dugarājasya putraḥ pravardhamāna-pratāpopanata-samasta-sāmanta-maṁḍalaḥ sva-śaktīi-straya-śūlāvabhinna-para-narapati-sakala-bala-cetanaḥ sva-vaṁśodaya-śrī-giri-śikharāvabhāsi-mahodayatvān meṟur iva sthitimān ravir iva tejasvī parapma-brahmaṇyo mātā-pitur̥-pādaānurddhyātāaḥ pr̥thur iva pradhīthita-yaśāḥ śrī-viṣṇuvardhana-mahārājasyaḥ Ittham ājñāpayati

pasiṇḍipaṟu-vastavyasya taitrīyataittirīya-saha-brahmacāriṇe bhāradvāja-gotrasya trivedasya Āpastaṁbhba-sūtrasya devaśarmmaṇeaḥ pauttrāya veda-vedāṁdāga-video droṇamaṇḍasya putrāyaḥ govindaśarmmaṇe Aneka-kaḷlā-śāstra-jñāya candra-grahaṇa-nimitte toya-pūrvvaṁ kr̥tvā prāṅgguṇāḷa-viṣaye boṇḍāḍa nāma grāmae kuṭuṁybinaḥ samājñāpayati gr̥ha-stthānaṁ toṭa-vāṭa-sahitaṁ dattaṁ. Āśgneya-digbhāge vrīhi-vīja-triṁśat-khaṇḍikaṁ cāa kṣetraṁ nūṟu 100 maṟuntru kṣetrebhyantaraṁ dattavāN

Asya kṣetrasya sīmaā-vibhāgaḥ. pūrvvataḥ kāḷasīya-vāṭabhoya-kṣetra-sīmaḥā. dakṣiṇataḥ tuṁkhtalapaṟu-bhoya-kṣetra-sīmaḥā. paściṇmataḥ ga kāulyā. Uttarataḥ kāmadeva-kṣetraḥ kṣetraṁm iti. Asya dharmmasyaāharttā paripālaIyitā Āgāmi-kāla-rājariṣirṣir mayā śirasā pratibpūjita Iti. vyāsa-śgītaau dvau ślokau

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā bahubhiś cānupālitā yasya yasya yadā bhūvmiḥ tasya tasya tathdāphalaṁ sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā yo hareṣuta vasundharāṁ ṣṭiaṣṭir vvaṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇi viṣṭṭhāyāṁ jāyate krir̥miḥ

Āgjñaptir asya prāguṇāla-viṣaya-rāṣṭrakuṭubi kakaṇḍiveḷḷi muṭḷu

svasti

litānāṁ -lāñcha The text I supply here is five characters longer than that needed to restore the first two lines, while the extant bit of text at the beginning of the line is only 2 or 3 characters shorter. Perhaps vara was omitted from the standard text in the original. ṇa-vaśikr̥tāśeṣa--kr̥ta-gā Here too, the text is slightly long. The restoration is probably very close to the original, except for the word mahībhr̥tām, which may have been a different word meaning king or enemy. -ripu--cara The restoration is probably very close, but the original may have been slightly shorter, e.g. through lacking the word taṭa or rāga. nāravinda-yugalaḥsya PS prints the two supplied segments in the same editorial markup. I assume that ga has been omitted, while nāra has been worn to illegibility. PS does not supply the lost text on 1v, so he must have had some reason to supply just these two syllables at the beginning of this line. Further, PS does not emend -yugalaḥ to -yugalasya. The text is syntactically acceptable without this emendation, but given the structure of the section, I am quite certain that a genitive was intended here. saṁghaṭṭanopalabdha saṁghaṭṭoṇopalabdha PS's reading, printed with ṇo in square brackets, should in principle mean that ṇo is unclear, but he may have wished to indicate something else. I believe the composer's intent was saṁghaṭṭanopalabdha, but this may require emendation if PS is correct in printing ṭṭoṇo. -vijayinaḥ The text is slightly garbled here; it ought to be -vijayinaḥ without preceding upalabdha, or -vijayasya with it. Both occur in similar expressions in related plates. -straya-śūlāvabhinna- Although the text is intelligible this way, I am quite certain that scribal haplography is involved, and the composer's intent had been -traya-triśūlāvabhinna-. Compare e.g. the very similar phrases in the Guḍivāḍa plates (set 2) of Jayasiṁha I. meṟur Lacking the means to verify, I accept PS's reading meṟur, but I doubt the ṟ here. pasiṇḍipaṟu- PS prints ṟu in round parentheses, which by his notation should mean that he is emending the preceding pa to ṟu. I assume that he intended to indicate an unclear character. -video PS does not make this emendation, and it is not essential for the text to be intelligible, but here too, I feel certain on the basis of the passage's structure that this was the composer's intent. Aneka-kaḷlā-śāstra- PS prints aneka kaḷā sāstragñāya, noting after aneka that Asterisk sign on the right side of the top of the letter ka and a damaged letter ma below the line are noticeable. Hence it may be read as aneka kalā. I do not understand why he observes the scribal mark and the added letter if he then disregards them. I wonder if the text has been corrected from dharma-śāstra to kalā-śāstra or the other way round. prāṅgguṇāḷa Given that the spelling is reported as prāguṇāla in line 24, I have some doubt about the correctness of ṅggu here. -jñāya -gñāya I believe that this is a typo in PS's edition, but cannot be certain; compare samājñāpayati in line 16 and Āgñaptir in line 24. samājñāpayati PS's edition prints samāñāpayati with an indiscernible manual addition before ñ. Since the diacritical marks in his edition have also been added by hand, I believe this is a correction by PS and the plates have the expected samājñāpayati; however, compare the notes to lines 14 and 24. kṣetrebhyantaraṁ I cannot interpret this reading. PS's commentary speaks about ābhyantara-kṣetra at one point and abhyantara-kṣetra at another. If that is correct, then the reading may be printed incorrectly. If the reading is correct, then perhaps it should be interpreted as kṣetre ’bhyantaraṁ with abhyantara as a substantive (a kind of revenue?). See also the note to the translation. tuṁkhtalapaṟu- PS's reading of this name seems doubtful to me. ga kāulyā PS observes that the ā seems to have been erased and a very faint u has been added at the bottom. He opines that ga is superfluous, and thus obtains the word kulyā, which he says means a canal. Sircar's IEG refers this meaning of kulyā to a single publication in EI, which is a copper plate from the far north, deemed spurious by its editor, who announces without any explanation or evidence that kulyā means an irrigation canal. I believe both PS's reading and his interpretation may be incorrect. -kṣetraḥ kṣetraṁm iti PS does not comment on the repetition. The intent may have been simply kṣetram iti, though kṣetra-sīmā is also plausible. Āgjñaptir Here, the reading and emendation are both present in PS's edition, so the received reading is apparently correctly reported. Compare the related words in lines 14 and 16. rāṣṭrakuṭubi kakaṇḍiveḷḷi muṭḷu I show the received reading as printed in PS's edition. PS emends kuṭubi to kuṭuṁbi in the body text, but then notes that The medial i on ti and the letter bi seem to have been erased, so I believe the plates may in fact read kuṭibi. PS then proposes reading rāṣṭrakūṭaka kaṇḍivelli muṭlu, understanding the latter two words as a name. Without seeing the plates, I cannot offer an opinion on reading rāṣṭrakūṭa, but believe that whether or not that word has been corrected by the scribe, the name (or whatever it is) should better be read kakaṇḍiveḷḷi muṭḷu.

Greetings. The grandson of His Majesty King Viṣṇuvardhana II,According to PS, It is known from the broken piece that no earlier king is mentioned than Maṅgi. But I would expect the current king’s father and grandfather to be named, and Viṣṇuvardhana II could very well have been mentioned in line 5. who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Chaḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāritī, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, who are protected by the band of Mothers, to whom all kings instantaneously submit at the mere sight of the Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa and whose limbs have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice— the son of His Majesty Maṅgi Dugarāja, whose pair of lotus feet were tinted by the hues of the rays from the many gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of all the enemy kings bowed down by the blade of his own sword, who attained victory in the clash of many a battle: His Majesty the supremely pious King Viṣṇuvardhana III, who was deliberately appointed as heir by his mother and father, whose ever-increasing valour forces the entire circle of subordinate rulers sāmanta to bow, who breaks the entire army and even the mind of enemy kings with the trident comprised of his own three powers śakti-traya, who—because of his magnanimity illuminating the summit of the majestic Sunrise Mountain that is his own dynasty—is as sound as Mount Meru and as fierce as the sun,The eulogy is probably a little garbled here: Viṣṇuvardhana’s illumination of the mountain of his dynasty should be adjacent to his comparison to the sun. Compare also ll. 14-15 of the Pithapuram plates (set 1) of Jayasiṁha I. who has widespread glory like Pr̥thu, commands as follows.

Informs the householders.This phrase was probably erroneously added to line 16, where it breaks the sentence completely after the name of the village and the district. In many related grants, the king addresses the householders and overseers of a particular village and its district, so the words were probably inserted here under the influence of that practice. To the grandson of Devaśarman—a resident of Pasiṇḍipaṟu belonging to the Taittirīya school and the Bhāradvāja gotra, learned in three Vedas and the Āpastamba sūtra—and son of Droṇamaṇḍa learned in the Vedas and Vedāṅgas, namely Govindaśarman, who is familiar with numerous disciplines kalā and treatises śāstra, on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon I have given, accompanied by a libation of water, a homestead plot along with a herb and flower gardenAccording to PS’s discussion, the donation includes garden and vāta or, elsewhere, gardens and residential locality (vāta)”. My assumption, which may be wrong, is that the Telugu word toṭa and the Sanskrit word vāṭa refer to two related but different things, the first probably being a herb or vegetable garden, and the second a flower garden. Flower gardens (puṣpa-vāṭikā) are mentioned in association with a homestead plot in the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III, the London Plates of Maṅgi Yuvarājaand the Elūru Grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, but toṭa is, as far as I am aware, unique in the corpus. at the village named Boṇḍāḍa in PrāṅgguṇāḷaThe spelling of the name here and at the end of the charter is strange. It is certainly the same district that is called variously called Pāgunavara and Prakuṇora. district viṣaya. I have also given to him a field sufficient for the sowing of thirty khaṇḍikas of paddy seed in the southeastern direction, the revenue of that field being a hundred, i.e. 100, maṟuntru.I do not understand this part; see the apparatus to line 17 for the textual problem involved. I assume that abhyantara means some kind of revenue (cf. Sircar’s IEG, s.v. abhyantarasiddhi) to which the donee is entitled from this field. PS suggests that the term abhyantara-kṣetra means wet land, but does not justify this in any way. In his summary, he calls this a field “of hundred maṟuntrus” once and “hundred maṟturs” another time, apparently separate from the paddy field. It is not clear whether the word maṟuntru is so straightforward to him that he does not deign to explain it, or if he is as ignorant of the meaning as I am. At any rate, I definitely do not think the text is about two fields.

The disposition of the borders of this field is as follows. To the east, the border of the bhoya field of the village Kāḷasīya-vāṭa. To the south, the border of the bhoya field of the village Tuṁkhtalapaṟu. To the west, a canal.The reading and interpretation are problematic here; see the apparatus to line 19. To the north, the field called the field of Kāmadeva. I worship with bowed head that sagacious king of a future age who does not confiscate this ruling dharma but protects it. There are these two ślokas sung by Vyāsa:

Many kings have granted land, and many have preserved it as formerly granted. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit reward accrued of granting it belongs to him at that time.

He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty millennia.

The executor ājñapti of this decree is Kakaṇḍiveḷḷi Muṭlu, a householder of the province rāṣṭra that is the district viṣaya of Prāguṇāla.The name may be Kaṇḍiveḷḷi Muṭlu, and he may be a territorial overseer (rāṣṭrakūṭa) of Prāguṇāla district. See the apparatus to line 24. Blessings.

Not reported in ARIE. Edited from the original by P. V. Parabrahma Sastry (), without facsimiles, with a summary of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh follows Parabrahma Sastry's edition unless otherwise noted in the apparatus, except for the silent correction of what I deem to be typos and transliteration inconsistencies in PS's edition. The restorations supplied on 1v are also mine. PS mentions that the charter contains many scribal corrections, but explicitly indicates only a very few in his edition.