-jayaḥ Emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III. rājaā Emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. nityaṁ Once again, emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. dinakara Or, less likely, divākara. AĀyatimān api I emend tentatively; see also my translation. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant has the same reading. ahi-nāmāpy I emend even more tentatively than in line 20, and I am uncertain of the intended meaning. See also my translation. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant includes the same phrase, but the edge of the plate is broken off at the critical point. Still, it seems likely that only one character is lost there between ahi at the end of the extant line and pya° in the next, so my conjecture is not confirmed. -kulāa- To the right of la, there is a vertical bar bracketed on each side by a dot. I interpret this to be an erroneously inscribed ā marker that has been deleted by adding the dots; compare the identical mark in line 48, the probable strikeout in line 25, and the probably identical correction mark in line 28. -mukha-cakra- I am not entirely certain of this reading, but compare the similar-looking kha in line 34. -vnyakkr̥tāneka- The initial v is quite clear, so -vyākr̥tāneka- would be a smaller emendation. It is, however, less appropriate to the context, and -nyakkr̥tāneka- is corroborated by line 25 of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. The character read as ne is damaged and may have been corrected; the preceding ā marker may also be involved in this correction. -vikramaḥ The text is interpretable without my emendation. It seems to me, however, that a gaṇacchandas line starts with kali-viṭṭara-. In addition to the more or less correct prosody of that passage (see also the next note), the birth of Vijayāditya III from Viṣṇuvardhana V and Śīla-mahādevī has just been related above. Repeating this information in prose would be very awkward, while a restatement is acceptable if the diction now changes to verse. However, if I am correct in assuming that the following part is verse, then it is a single hemistich, since from bhadra-ghaṭa onward we have a fairly correct and coherent gaṇacchandas stanza. On the other hand, I see no way to fit the text before kali-viṭṭara- to metre. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant has a clear visarga here and also switches to verse at this point, but the stanza that follows there is analogous to stanza 2 of the present text. śīlama-devyaāś This may be an alternative name of the queen mother, or a scribal error for śīla-mahādevyāś. If this passage is meant to be gaṇacchandas verse, then śīla-mahādevyāś ca samutpanno yields a 30-mora line with the sub-par pattern – ⏑ ⏑ in the seventh foot, while śīlama-devyās samutpanno (without ca) yields a fully correct 27-mora line. kāatham The superfluous vowel marker has been struck through with a horizontal line or a series of dots. dhanaya I would expect a plural substantive meaning something like "subjects" or "the poor" here, but other meanings may also work. With the uninterpretable received reading, the line is a mostly correct second hemistich of an āryā stanza, with metrical licence in the fourth foot where the ni of ajani must be scanned as short in spite of the following pr. If dhanaya is erroneous, then it should most probably be corrected so that it becomes five morae in length, three of them in the second foot and two in the third. This would yield a prosodically correct 30-mora line (such as the second hemistich of a gīti) without any metrical anomalies. The parallel stanza in the Uṟuvuṭūru grant reads jīvanti dhanā katham iti and continues differently than here. That text is also unintelligible as received, but emendation to jīvanty adhanāḥ katham iti or jīvanti janāḥ katham iti would render it metrically and semantically correct. Returning to the present locus, emendation nirdhanāḥ, or possibly to jātayaḥ or jantavaḥ, would make sense in the context and produce correct metre. Adyaāpi My emendations are tentative throughout this hemistich, and my interpretation (see the translation) is rather forced. As emended, the text is metrically correct and relatively intelligible. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant does not provide a parallel for this stanza. nivaāsi The first consonant may perhaps be a misshapen b, but I see no way to derive meaning with that reading. A vowel mark may not be present, but I believe that a partially drawn i has been squeezed into the narrow space between the top of the consonant and the subscript part of styā above. pūrāita Ivārkkendu dvareniradya gehasya Aside from the occasional meaningful word, I am unable to interpret this stretch or restore it with any plausibility. Most of the characters are clear. I believe, but am not entirely certain, that an original rā has been cdorrected to ri by putting a dot on either side of the ā marker and adding the i marker (see the note to line 20). My dva may perhaps be ddha, but other instances of ddha have a much larger subscript component with a conspicuously notched bottom. The following ni may perhaps be a misshapen bhi. As received, it is also gravely unmetrical, but it was probably intended to be a gaṇacchandas passage. I also find the two occurrences of adya suspect and believe that the second may be a scribal error for asya. The hemistich may have said something to the effect that Vijayāditya's residence seems to be filled with the light of the sun and the moon (in his insignia?), but until and unless a less corrupt parallel comes to the surface, I see no hope of reconstructing it. gaṁgaā- The first hemistich of this stanza scans correctly with 32 morae as shown here, or with 30 morae if sadā is shifted to the next hemistich. However, I see no way to fit the second half to a regular metre. Counting sadā in the second half, a 32-mora line can be obtained with minor emendations (ḍhakkā to ḍhakka, puri to purā, digantara to digantaraṁ), but this has a faulty caesura (ma|hāśabda, and moreover, the combination of 30+32-mora hemistichs (lalitā) is rare and not known in the Veṅgī corpus before the time of Bhīma II. I therefore think that the first line is likely to include sadā. This way, paḍa-ḍhakkā-pañca-mahā produce the correct first 3 feet, while digantaraṁ nirgamane (with an added anusvāra) make the correct last 3 feet of another 32-mora line, or ra°-nirgamane (without the supplied anusvāra) may be the last 3 feet of a 27-mora, but further emendations are needed in both cases in the central two feet. For a partial parallel, the Uṟuvuṭūru grant includes a garbled hemistich that seems to read yasya vijetuḫ purataḥ pañca-mahā-śabda-saṁhati-svānati purāḥ. puri Given the partial parallel cited in the previous note, I believe that this is a corruption of a word meaning "preceded by" compounded to the previous words, and not a word meaning "town" connected to the following words. The intent was probably -purā (for the masculine nominative of -puras in sandhi), but being uncertain, I hesitate to emend in the text. -nirggameane I think that the e marker was struck out with a horizontal stroke; it is also possible that ne was corrected to ma by converting the body to an m and striking out the e marker. -cihna- Two heavy syllables are required here. Emendation to -cihnaṁ would be prosodically correct, but I am unable to interpret the text that way, while I can with some difficulty make sense of the received reading. vaāraāhāa- While the term is always varāha-lāñchana, the metre requires vārāha here. pūjaeva The first character may perhaps be sū instead of pū. The second resembles tha, dha or ṭha, but I feel it is most likely to be a misshapen ja squeezed into the space between the descender of ndra and the binding hole. The third is probably va, but may also be a damaged na; it also resembles ta to some extent, but I believe that the apparent tail stroke responsible for this is not part of the engraving. Īdr̥g- I am fairly certain that the diction switches back to prose here. This passage still includes chunks that could be gaṇacchandas verse, but no complete hemistichs can be reconstructed. It is possible that an earlier verse composition has been paraphrased in prose here. caga- The only meaningful reading I can come up with is vadha, but both of the inscribed characters require a stretch to obtain this reading, and I do not find it satisfactory in the context. Could tyāga have been intended? para-nr̥paāṁkakaāri- Emended on the basis of correcture and a differently corrupt instance of this phrase in line 29 of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. -tatvebhyaḥ The e may have been added subsequently, as it is attached to the bottom left of the t, which does not happen elsewhere in the text. ṣaṭkarmma- The character ṭka may be a correction from ka or ṣka. ruyūru- The intent was probably rāyūru as in the previous line. piṣṭhaśarmmaṇe The reading is piṣṭha° or biṣṭha°, but the intent may have been jeṣṭha°, as in the previous line. -duduraudvaha- The intent may have been durdurudvaha, but that would break the metre in what I believe was meant to be another stanza. -nivastra- This word is used in the sense of -nirvastra-. I do not normalise because doing so would break the metre, and because the single v implies that the absence of r is not a scribal mistake. karppaṭena This word is unmetrical, but "de-normalisation" to kapaṭena would a fully correct first hemistich of an āryā. Ajñopavitrinayajñopavītinaḥ This is a very strange spelling, but I do not think there is any doubt about the intended meaning. The visarga is required for the metre; otherwise, the received and the normalised form are prosodically equivalent. palasa- The intended meaning is certainly palāśa, but normalisation would break the metre. With the received reading, we have a correct second āryā hemistich, except that the caesura expected at at pala|sa is not observed. Since the fourth foot is of the pattern ⏑ – ⏑, the line is a legitimate vipulā. -daṇḍa- If I am correct in my interpretation of the next word (see below), then palasa-daṇḍa ought to be a separate bahuvrīhi qualifying the subjects, not compounded to the following. However, emending to daṇḍā would disrupt the prosody, so I consider this to be a case of lax compound management or use of a noun in its stem form. -ṇinivatthanā I believe this word is a vernacularised spelling of ninivartanā, which in turn is used in the sense of nirnivartanā. I do not know of any attestation of either of these words, but think that nirnivartana can be derived cleanly and mean the same as anivartana, which is attested. gavana- I do not understand this word; it may be the name of a particular flower, or perhaps a variant of the Sanskrit word gahana. triparivarantā-ballaha-namubadakisanāṁ The reading is quite clear except that lla may perhaps be just la, ha may perhaps be hā, da may perhaps be ḍa, and ki may perhaps be ko. I can only guess at the intended meaning. At the beginning of this segment, the name Tripura or Tripurī may be present, or the Sanskrit words tri, parivāra and anta. This is probably followed by ballaha, equivalent to Sanskrit vallabha, possibly followed by nāma, perhaps with a Telugu declensional ending, nāmaṁbu. At the end, dakṣiṇasyām or dakṣiṇa-diśāyām may have been meant. sva-bhatrabhrātrā vijayādityaḥsya My emendation and normalisation reflects what I believe to be the intended meaning, but the form in which the composer wished to express this may have been slightly different. A less likely possibility is that the brother was also called Vijayāditya. See also the note to the translation. -nāmā graāmo dattaḥ The character corrected to da involved a subscript t and a curved outline on the bottom right; it may well have been tta. The deleted character below the visarga may have been another ta, which was then reinscribed further to the right. The vowel markers in māgramo seem like afterthoughts, but there is no indication that the consonants have been corrected here. davaśapaṟu The intent may have been deveśapaṟu, but the headmarks, though extended somewhat to the left, do not bend down as they do in all clear instances of e, and do not differ from e.g. that on the preceding ta. gaṇaliraraṟu The last character may also beṟṟu, and the penultimate may have been meant for va with the upper outline of the body omitted. kāaraṇīyā The superfluous vowel marker is clearly deleted by the addition of a dot on either side; cf. the note to line 21. °r asya dharmmasya pāṇḍaraṅgo Supplied from the signature stanza of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. An almost identical stanza in the Candavolu plates of Vijayāditya III describes Pāṇḍaraṅga as guṇākaraḥ instead of guṇādhikaḥ. -bhūpāloa-pāda Corrected on the basis of the Candavolu plates. śrī va The Kāṭlapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya III, also executed by Pāṇḍaraṅga (signed in prose), ends with śivam astu| śāntir astu||. The same phrase may have been misspelt here. More likely in my opinion, even though va is clearly not vi, is that this is the beginning of the name of Śrīvijayācārya, who inscribed two other known grants of Vijayāditya.

Greetings! Satyāśraya Vallabhendra Pulakeśin II was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed to kingship by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries instantaneously submit at the mere sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions avabhr̥tha of the Aśvamedha sacrifice. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana reigned for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha I, for thirty-three years. His younger brother Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s dear son Viṣṇurāja Viṣṇuvardhana II, for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha II, the shelter of the complete world sakala-lokāśraya, for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. His elder brother Viṣṇuvardhana III, for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya I, for nineteen years. His son Viṣṇurāja Viṣṇuvardhana IV, for thirty-six years. His son—

King Cāḷukyārjuna, a ruler born of the Cāḷukya dynasty, obtained glory and triumph by winning a hundred and eight battles.

He of the lineage of Satyāśraya, His Majesty King Vijayāditya II Narendra-mr̥garāja, was ever generous, masterful and greatly endeavouring.

Renowned for his boldness, he shines for ever on the surface of the earth, because after fighting his hundred and eight battles, for the expulsion of the sin accrued therefrom, he also established a hundred and eight temples named Narendreśvara across the land of Veṅgī at the site of each of those battles, complete with Brahmanical settlements agrahāra, roadside cisterns prapā, wayrests ārāma, ponds taṭāka, gardens upavana and shrines of the Lord īśvara, Śiva with facilities for dance, song and with choultries satra.

This Vijayāditya II reigned for forty-one years. His son, named Kali-Viṣṇu Viṣṇuvardhana V, protected the kingdom of Veṅgī for twenty months. His eldest son Vijayāditya III gladdens Padmā Lakṣmī as the sun gladdens lotuses; generates joy in the humble as Vainateya Garuḍa generates joy in his mother Vinatā; gladdens Sītā Lakṣmī as Rāma gladdens his wife Sītā; has an excess of fearsome yet fair glory as Yudhiṣṭhira surpasses his brothers Bhīma and Arjuna in glory; perceives the right way as Manu shows the right way; is not the moon is not a mine of faults even though he has moon-digits possesses the arts; is a lover of loose women is the beloved of Lady Earth even while he is the beloved of Fortune of royal Lakṣmī; is perfectly circular virtuous in conduct even though he is oblong has a lineage; is pure in demeanour even though he loves outcastes mātaṁga is fond of elephants; is not associated with snakes does not associate with the wicked even though he is verily a serpent he is named after the Sun.I cannot make sense of the text as received here, see the apparatus to line 21. I emend it tentatively, but even so the interpretation is problematic. I am quite certain of my hunch about the essence of this virodhābhāsa, but not at all sure how ahi-nāmā is to be understood in the positive reading. Since ahi can mean the sun, I believe this is an allusion to the āditya in his name, but it is possible that some other name of the king is in some way associated with snakes. Like Kārttikeya to Umā, he was born to the highborn and demure Śīla-mahādevī, whose round face is a moon-orb to swell the tide of the ocean that is the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family. His sin has been washed off by a flood of many tulābhāra donations weighed against his own body. He is valiant against the armies of many crooked enemies laid low by his own valour.

He was born of His Majesty Kali-Viṭṭara Viṣṇuvardhana V and Śīlama-devī.

“How do the penniless live now that the jar of plenty, the wish-fulfilling tree, the philosophers’ stone and the wishing cow are gone?”—with this in mind was the renowned Bhuvana-kandarpa love-god on earth born.

Once upon a time, there were the selfless ones: the Maid’s Son Karṇa, Gupta, Bali, Śibi, Dadhīci. Now Guṇaga has been born as the sixth by virtue of the merit of the needy throngs.

Even today, the sum total of loveliness and fiery power apportioned hr̥ta to them amuka is resident in his arms, as though the of his house were filled by the of the sun and the moon.The whole of this stanza is problematic. See the apparatus to lines 27-28. The first half is interpretable with minimal emendation, but is extremely awkward. I believe that it continues the previous stanza and says that the virtues of those famous kings of yore live on in Vijayāditya, but the composer’s intent may have been something else. The second half may mean what I translate tentatively, but is unintelligible as received, and I cannot suggest a plausible emendation.

The two posts toraṇa of the ornamental gate gopura of his city are always attended by sculptures of Gaṅgā and Yamunā. When he proceeds to another place, he is heralded by the paḍa and ḍhakkā drums and the five great sounds. The stanza is again awkward, with an unitelligible spot in the second hemistich. See the apparatus to lines 28-29.

Even though he is a scion of the Veṅgī Cāḷukya dynasty whose emblems are those of the Majestic Vallabha King, his boar ensign seems also to offer him honours under pretence of being a makara banner for the love god.Again, the text is problematic and my emendations and interpretation uncertain.

Distinguished by such distinctions, he is also the Sorcerer of Purity śauca-vidyādhara due to his avoidance of contact with harlots; the Nārāyaṇa of the Triple World due to his complete protection of the three worlds; greatly munificent, victorious, observing the great vow of selflessness; the Blazing Sun of Kings nr̥pati-mārtaṇḍa due to his excessive ferocity; Biḍāku-Bhīma due to his great strength; the Royal Tournament Lion arasaṁka-kesari due to his hewing of the champions of enemy kings. He, His Majesty King Vijayāditya III commands all householders kuṭumbin—including foremost the territorial overseers rāṣṭrakūṭa—who reside in Cavuḻpallya district viṣaya as follows:

Let it be known to you that we have made a donation to earthly gods Brahmins engaged in the the six duties of a Brahmin, who know all the treatises śāstra such as Mimāṁsā, who gratify the complete coterie of gods by the ceaseless offering of sacrifices, who are learned in the four Vedas, who have completely mastered the truths of all the Vedāṅgas, who take after Vaśiṣṭha, Jamadagni, Bharadvāja, Parāśara and Durvāsas, namely to Cimmaśarman, resident of Rāyūru, of the Kauṇḍinya gotra; Jeṣṭhaśarman, resident of Ruyūru, of the Kāśyapa gotra; Piṣṭhaśarman, resident of Vaṁgipaṟṟu, of the Kauśika gotra; and Vennaśarman, resident of Karañcedu, of the Kauṇḍinya gotra.

Ever unwavering in their performance of the unclothed karpaṭa vow, which is harsh and extremely hard to accomplish, they wear only a deerskin and the sacrificial thread, and carry a staff of palāśa wood.My translation corresponds in rough lines to what the composer must have meant, but the text is again imperfect and awkward, so some details may have been intended differently.

On the occasion of an eclipse of the sun we have given the village named Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru in the township mahā-grāma of Mannakeda abounding in gavana flowers ,See the apparatus to line 42 about the problem spots in this passage and some speculation. to these four Brahmins, the donation being sanctified by a libation of water. The village named Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru has been given by Vijayāditya’s own brother, in the presence of the king.I translate what I believe to be the meaning intended by the composer. A younger brother of Vijayāditya III, named Nr̥pakāma, is known from the Sātalūru plates of Vijayāditya III.

Its boundaries are as follows. To the east, Davaśapaṟu. To the south, Atupaṟṟu. To the west, Gaṇaliraṟu. To the north, Mṟropaṟṟu. On the southeast, Rakaśakuṟṟu. On the southwest, the verge of the fields pola-garusu in Sakaṭana. On the northwest, the Enu pond guṇṭa. On the northeast, the Muttāli pond guṇṭa. It is located amidst these boundaries. Let no-one pose an obstacle to their enjoyment of rights over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has said:

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 thousand years.

A seizer of granted land cannot be purified even by donating ten million cows, nor by performing a hundred Aśvamedhas, nor by constructing a thousand tanks.

It is not actual poison that is properly called poison: it is the property of a Brahmin that is said to be poison. Poison kills just the one man, while seizing the property of a Brahmin destroys his progeny.

Hereby I offer my respectful obeisance añjali to all future kings on earth, born in my lineage and in different royal lineages, who with minds averted from sin observe this provision dharma of mine in its integrity.

The executor ājñapti of this provision dharma is Pāṇḍaraṅga of surpassing virtue, a bee at the lotus feet of King Vijayāditya.See the apparatus to line 55.

Prosperity Or Śrīvijayācārya; see the apparatus to line 56

The first 10 lines are almost verbatim identical to those of the Ciṁbulūru plates of Vijayāditya III and the first 18 lines to the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III. The description of the donees (ll. 35-38) is identical to that in the Ciṁbulūru plates. The rest of the praśasti bears close resemblance to Uṟuvuṭūru grant, and to no other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant and the present text record the length of Viṣṇuvardhana V’s reign as 20 months, whereas all other known charters that state its duration give 18 months (or a year and a half), or “two autumns”.

The donated village Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru is bordered on the north by Mṟropaṟṟu, while the latter village (with a slightly different spelling) is donated in the Mḻopaṟṟu grant, attributed to Maṅgi Yuvarāja but in all probability made or reissued in the time of Vijayāditya III. That village Mḻopaṟṟu is bordered on the south by Pulgoṭlapabulūru. These two grants are the only ones mentioning Cavuḻpallya viṣaya. The five exhortatory stanzas in the present charter are identical (down to their details and sequence) to the first five in the Mḻopaṟṟu grant, while three of them are otherwise rare in the corpus.

No report and no previous edition of this grant is known. The present edition was created for DHARMA by Dániel Balogh, on the basis of photographs taken by myself in February 2023 at the Andhra Sahitya Parishad Museum, Kakinada. Someone at some point must have read the plates at least cursorily, because the item is recorded in the Museum's catalogue with the name of the ruler and the granted village.