The boundary lists in lines 16-17 and 18-20 are somewhat problematic because of the inconsistent (and mostly missing) case endings. I am quite certain that the demarcation of two separate fields is presented here, both commencing with the location of the field with respect to the village Elūru. In each demarcation, this is followed by four pairs of “landmark” + “direction”, in the conventional order of East–South–West–North. It is therefore most likely that the landmarks are to be construed in the nominative, understood to mean that each landmark is to the specified direction of the field. With this interpretation, however, the syntax of the text is extremely fragmented, with several complete sentences inserted parenthetically as it were into the framing sentence that announces the grant.

Conversely, if the landmark–direction pairs are to be construed as compounds meaning that the field is to the specified direction of each landmark, the resulting sentence is syntactically more or less correct, although highly convoluted and complex. There are some cases in the Eastern Cālukya copperplate corpus where boundary demarcations are (or may be) presented in this manner. In the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III, the demarcation likewise follows a statement of the field’s location with respect to the village. That grant, incidentally, is the only other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of to use termite mounds as boundary markers. There, however, the directions come in the order West–North–South–East, whereby the conventional subjective order East–South–West–North obtains if the pairs are interpreted to mean that the field is to the said direction of the landmark. The Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II (but not the other two related sets from Peddāpurappāḍu) also situates the field relative to the landmarks, but there this is made explicit by putting the landmarks in the ablative case, although the actual order is still E–S–W–N, so the subjective order (of the boundaries relative to the field) is reversed. The Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja demarcates three fields in two differently unconventional sequences of directions, one or both of which may also have to be understood as positioning the field relative to each landmark. In the Peñceṟekuru grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, the landmarks are likewise in the ablative, and their sequence is likewise erratic. Finally, the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II also put the landmarks in the ablative case, but the sequence there is again unconventional (E–W–S–N).

It is thus possible that the demarcations are to be understood as situating the field relative to each landmark, but because the present charter employs the standard sequence of directions and does not use the ablative case for the landmarks, I think this is unlikely, and the demarcations are to be interpreted in the same way as those in the overwhelming majority of related grants, in spite of the syntactical difficulty involved.

Another possible complication in the boundary list ist that the word vālmīka is graphically quite similar to Elūru, and it is therefore not impossible that one or more of the many vālmīkas in the text are scribal mistakes for Elūru. This may, in particular, be the case for the vālmīka to the west of the first field (in line 17, inscribed only as vālmī), since this field lies to the east of Elūru.

Not noted by Krishna Rao, the recto of plate 3 is a palimpsest. No traces of earlier writing can be made out on any other page. On 3r, there were probably 4 lines of writing in larger characters than the present inscription, so that all of the fourth earlier line is below the last presently inscribed line, but there is still blank space below where there was probably no earlier writing. In this fourth line, the text varāha-lāñchanānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna can be made out without much difficulty, so this page had once been inscribed with the opening passage of Eastern Cālukya grants. Further legible bits of the earlier writing include māna-mānavya-sa in line 1 (slightly above the level of the present first line on this page), and paripālitānāṁ bhagava in line 3 (slightly above the level of the present inscription’s last line).

Reported in 7A/1937-386 with description at 80-8141. Edited from the original by B. V. Krishna Rao (), with a summary of the contents, followed immediately by a slight revision () accompanied by facsimiles.The inscription has also been published in , Vol. XVI, pp. 613 ff., not traced. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the original taken by myself in February 2023 at the Rallabandi Subba Rao Archaeological Museum, Rajahmundry, collated with Krishna Rao's editions and his facsimiles. Minor typographic mistakes and oversights in either of the previous editions are not shown in the apparatus here.