BANGLA IN THE LEGAL FIELD Introduction The legal field counts heavily on language.

Customary and exceptional use of vocabulary, registers, typically long and complex syntactic structures, inherent mannerisms, specialized interpretation of linguistic items and lack of clarity characterize the language of the legal field. Both the modes, viz. written and spoken, are used for legal purposes. The Indian plurilingual context elicits a multilingual handling of the legal proceedings English, Hindi and regional languages are used for the purpose. In fact, at the interactive level the courtroom language allows a high degree of code mixing and switching between these three varieties. Moreover, the third category, i.e. the regional variety, invariably includes more than one language in every region or state. Bayer (1986:57) posits the following varieties of spoken languages in the Indian courtroom context: 1. 2. 3. 4. Formal legal language, whether English or Regional language Regional Standard English Colloquial English Language varieties other than the dominant regional language

Though Bayer avoids mentioning Hindi, this too is used in the courtroom either as the formal legal language or as the regional language. Constant code mixing and switching at all these four levels, however, makes the microdata of the spoken courtroom context baffling and any systematic study a methodological challenge. On the contrary the written language of the legal field is comparatively easy to capture as it obeys the directives of article 348 of the Indian Constitution, the gist of which is as follows: All the proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court and the authoritative texts shall be in the English language. The Government of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorize the use of the Hindi language, or any other language, used for any official purposes of the State, in proceedings in the High Court.

Moreover, written language provides extremely restricted provision for code mixing and code switching. With the above in mind, and in view of the status of Bangla as one of the major regional languages of India, we shall look at written Bangla as deployed in the legal field. Section 1 will offer a brief history and classification of legal Bangla. Sections 2 and 3 will deal with the two varieties of legal Bangla, viz. codificational and procedural Bangla, respectively, which will be followed by a conclusion.

1. Legal Bangla The Bangla of the legal field is noticeably different. This difference, on the one hand, enables the legal practitioners to think about the language as their unique possession and, on the other hand, makes the common people realize that the legal variety is Bangla but not at all the Bangla that they use and understand. The situation may be comparable to the difference between a literate person and an illiterate. The latter has no access to the written language though both of them share a common spoken variety. The difference may be reduced to zero through the formal training of literacy. Likewise, individuals active in the legal field have to be specially literate. The course of study that imparts legal literacy ensures teaching of the registers and of the language characteristic of the field. The Bangla of the legal field has its own long history. The archive currently available goes back to the 17th century. A few legal documents like deeds, agreements, document of tax exemption, conveyance etc. represent the use of Bangla in this field in the early years of this archival material. Apart from these, the Bangla translations of laws as they were put in place under British rule, viz. the British law and what came to be enshrined as the customary law, date back to 1785. The study of the Bangla of the legal field took its first steps through the contributions of scholars belonging to several distinct disciplines. Firstly, the translation of the legal literature into Bangla was undertaken by individuals with specific standpoints associated with one or more of the following enterprises, which gave rise to corresponding intellectual premises and methodological assumptions:

1. Helping the government to rule more efficiently 2. Helping the common people to become conscious of their rights and duties, and 3. Implementing Bangla in legal field. To this group of translators belong foreigners like Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, Jonathan Duncan, Neil Benjamin Edmundstone, Henry Pitts Forster as well as native personalities that include stalwart pandits like Lakshminarayan Nayalankar, Kashinath Tarkapanchanan, Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar, Ramjaya Tarkalankar, a court judge like Shambhunath Chattopadhyay, a lawyer like Ram Mohun Roy and a registrar like Debiprasad Mukhopadhyay. Secondly, there have been contributions from scholars like Sukumar Sen, Asit Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Sajani Kanta Das, Shyamal Kumar Chattopadhyay, Manilal Khan and so on from the field of Bangla language who unanimously accepted the fact that the Bangla of ancient legal field represents the earliest form of written Bangla and discussed the linguistic features of the few available documents at length. To this group even the names of the creative writers like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and so on may also be included who in their stories and novels often created courtroom situations using courtroom dialogues with reference to laws in Bangla. Even the names of scholastic writers like Vidyasagar, Rabindranath Tagore, Rajshekhar Basu, Sudhindranath Dutta etc. who tried to build up a set of corresponding legal terminology in Bangla too naturally come under this group. Thirdly, there are scholars like Purnendunath Nath who combined the interests of the above two fields, viz. the legal field and the field of Bangla language and literature, and threw light on the various perspectives of the topic Bangla vs. law. This discussion brings to in light many controversial issues and in turn opens up a potential interdisciplinary field for future investigation. In fact, the names of the contributors from the various areas of interest mentioned above form an open ended long list; it can be seen that the study of the Bangla of the legal field has given rise to a heterogeneous body of writings. For example, one can look at the subject from different angles --time, space, motivation, extent of lexical borrowing, style and so on. For the present purpose I set aside this observed heterogeneity in the secondary literature and propose to

divide the Bangla legal field into two broad categories, viz. the Bangla of law codification (codificational Bangla) and the Bangla of legal proceedings (procedural Bangla), a bifurcation I attempt to justify linguistically. The Bangla of the legal field is popularly regarded as a variety with low comprehensibility. I will, in this respect, argue that the degree of comprehensibility varies depending on the purpose of language use, i.e. whether the language is used for the purpose of codification or for a procedural purpose. In other words, a flat rating of low comprehensibility for all types of Bangla used in the legal field is not sufficient. Using a few linguistic cues, viz. the high variety, sentence length, crazy errors and archaic spellings, I shall show that the procedural Bangla of the legal field is always a remote deviation from the then written variety, and hence has low comprehensibility whereas the Bangla of law codification is the same as the Bangla of contemporary literature. 2. CODIFICATIONAL BANGLA Codification includes a huge body of translated legal literature. Since 1785 till the current year innumerable Bangla translations of law are available. In the pre-colonial age the sources of Indian law were the Hindu scriptures, the Islamic scriptures and the whims of the ruling autocrats. The judicial personnel were the fauzdar (police officer), daroga (sub-inspector), kotoyal (constable), deoyan (rent-collector), kanungo (settlement officer), kaji (judge), nazir (head clerk) etc. The official language was Persian. Since 1661, incrementally, the East India Company secured the right to settle the civil and criminal disputes according to the British law on the Indian soil. They established various courts like the civil court, criminal court, collectors office or cutcherry, mayors court etc. In January 1775 the Supreme Court was established in Kolkata. In 1772 Warren Hastings became the Governor General. He formed a committee of eleven pundits who compiled a compendium of law on the basis of various Hindu scriptures. Hastings got this compendium translated into Persian. Afterwards this was translated into English by Nathaniel Brassey Halhed in 1776 and was called A Code of Gentoo Laws or Gentoo Code. This edition contains, other than law, a list of Persian and Bangla terms, a facsimile of Bangla letters and the names of the Bangla months, the earliest

piecemeal attestations of the use of Bangla in the legal field. The translated documents appeared after this. The 18th century translation works, of which there were three, were very extensive. They are as follows: Regulations for the Administration of Justice in the Courts of Dewanee Adaulut (1785) by Jonathan Duncan. 1. Bengal Translation of Regulation for the Administration of Justice, in the Fauzdari or Criminal Courts, in Bengal, Behar and Orissa (1791) by Neil Benjamin Edmundstone. 2. Government Regulations for 1793 (1793) by Henry Pitts Forster. English civilians who learned Bangla for their own work did all these three translations. In this endeavour they (especially Jonathan Duncan, the first translator) had to face at least three types of challenges, viz. the challenge of translating from English to Bangla which had never been done till that time, the challenge of creating written prose in Bangla - any model of which was just nonexistent at that time and the challenge of conveying difficult as well as very specialized concepts of the legal field. Among these three translations the first and the third were far more successful than the second. The second text failed to address the second challenge, i.e. creating the written prose in Bangla; instead, the translator surrendered to Persian, the then legal language of the province, thus producing a heavily PersoArabic influenced variety of Bangla. Now, this variety, according to renowned linguists like Sukumar Sen and others, was extremely opaque and artificial because of the existence of a very high degree of Perso-Arabic expressions at all levels.Furthermore, because of this deviant character this variety remained as the only specimen of its own type in the literature. Because of these reasons the Bangla of Neil Benjamin Edmundstone cannot be given the status of ancestor of the current Bangla prose. The first and third translations exemplify for us the oldest variety of written Bangla. Though the translators were English civilians they were very sensitive about the intrinsic appeal of this foreign language and responded accordingly. They neither imitated the structures of English, the source language, nor surrendered to the expressions of Persian, the then available language of the legal field. Rather they were successful in creating a simple and free flowing

Bangla prose for expressing the legal concepts. This variety was understood and well accepted by people. In fact, Jonathan Duncan, the first civilian translator, had to cross more serious hurdles than the third civilian, Henry Pitts Forster, as Duncan had to perform the task with absolutely no model of written Bangla whatsoever to help him. His own intelligence, imagination, intuition and aptitude in this foreign language were his only guides. While creating Bangla prose he often took the liberty of switching over from the high variety materials to the materials of the local spoken variety, from literal translation to free translation; introducing loan translational words and using popular phrasal expressions to meet the demands of the context. As a result of these initiatives the end product of his endeavour was sort of a free translation of the English legal text and the variety of Bangla used there may quite justifiably be considered as the ancestor of the modern Bangla prose. A specimen of this translation work is given below. maphasval deoyni dlat sakaler byabasthpak sheber njirer nyeb o mridh o peyd byatirek r sakal edeya ml lok pan pan svecchmate rkhite priben ebam. thr diger madhye yhke ucit bujhen chriy thr badale r upayukta lok pan bibecan mata rkhite priben. (pp.22) The Judges of the Mofussil Dewannee Adauluts, respectively, may appoint the native officers thereof; Conformably to their respective establishments; except the Naibs of the Nazirs, and except the Mirdahs and the peons and may, from time to time, remove any such officer, and may, from time to time, when any vacancy shall happen, appoint any other person duly qualified, to the office which shall become vacant. (5th dhara) The claim of its ancestral status becomes more evident if we compare this Bangla with the Bangla prose of Lipimala (1802) (cf. extract no. 7 in appendix) by Ramram Basu; of Vedanta Grantha (1815) and other works by Ram Mohun Roy; or of Vedantacandrika (1817) by Mrityunjaya Vidyalankar. The Bangla prose of these books and a few others belonging to the first half of the nineteenth century are considered as the ancestor of the modern Bangla prose by several scholars. The Bangla used by Jonathan Duncan or Henry Pitts Forster is quite similar in terms of its structure and elements to the Bangla of the texts mentioned above. The only difference between them is that the Bangla of the legal literature belongs to an even earlier age. This discussion, however, shows that the Bangla of the legal field of the eighteenth century reflects the traits not of a contemporary written variety but rather of a future variety of Bangla prose, that of literary field in the nineteenth

century. This implies that the eighteenth century legal variety was certainly not a difficult variety. In the nineteenth century we come across a good number of law translations in Bangla. Nath (1984:62) mentions a publishers list containing more than seventy-five books of this kind along with the comment that these books had good sales. These translations cover various aspects of law, e.g. Hindu law of inheritance; law of arrears of rent, of agreement, of bonds, of settlement; civil regulations; criminal police regulations; land revenue; stamp regulations; indigo regulations; salt regulations; Nizamut regulations; companys charter act etc. The appendix at the end of this paper provides a few extracts from law translations (nos. 1-6), and from the then Bangla literature (nos. 7-8). A comparison of these two types of prose shows no remarkable difference between them in terms of comprehensibility. So it may be said that the basic motivation behind all the law translation work was and still is to make law comprehensible to the native speakers. Hence the lucidity of expression is always aimed at. To achieve this goal the variety of language chosen is never older than the contemporary one. I shall conclude this section with an example of the translation of legal technical terms belonging to the last century. In ntarjtik in paribhs (technical terms of International law) (1976, 1st ed. 1970), a publication by the Bangla Academy, Dhaka, terms are translated into Bangla using very colloquial words with quite high frequency as follows: 1. Base Line smrekh (boundary line); sgar simrekh (boundary line on sea); 2. Air warfare k yuddha; hoyi hml (air raid) etc. The above edition too confirms that even in recent past the Bangla of codification in the legal field goes hand in hand with the contemporary literary Bangla and remains comprehensible to all. 3. PROCEDURAL BANGLA Procedural Bangla is a term used here to designate the variety of Bangla used in the court for the purpose of filing plaint, petition, appeal, damage suit, affidavit; for taking oath; in the settlement and registry offices for drafting will, firisti, application, notice, deeds of different types, agreement, resignation, conveyance

and so on that are directly or indirectly connected to the procedures in the courts. The chief difference between the codificational and procedural Bangla is that the codified materials are always products of translation from English whereas especially the older documents in procedural Bangla, say the documents of the seventeenth or eighteenth century, were originally composed in Bangla. Even now in the case of drafting wills, agreements and deeds that same tradition continues though in some other cases like notices, records etc. texts have been translated into Bangla mostly from English. The common characteristic of the segments under the procedural group is that each of them presents a stereotyped pattern in both format and language. For example, the format of a plaint starts with the name and location of the court, followed by the detailed introduction of both the plaintiff and defendant. The introduction necessarily includes the name, fathers name, caste, profession and address. Depending on whether one of the parties is a minor or insane, the government, or a government body, the introduction format varies in a specific direction. A summary of the claim follows the introduction, which in turn is followed by the description of the plaint; the prayer by the plaintiff follows; the verification is the last item. Every page of a plaint should be signed at the top right hand corner and the last page at the end after the verification. In short, a format is religiously followed in these matters. Now let us come to the language part. Extracts 9-14 in the appendix represent the procedural language. The Bangla used here is the sdhu or high variety with long sentences. The words used are from different stocks, viz. pure Sanskrit, Perso-Arabic, native Bangla and English. Moreover, in various types of deeds along with the stereotyped format and language we see customary phrasal and lexical expressions like likhitam chaudhuriyam/ r jugal kior dhyasya/ r mbar l (cf. extracts 9, 10, 12); mahmahim dayni dlater syut sheb barbaresu. (cf. extract 11); kasya bikray/ khos kobl dalilpatramidam kryyncge (cf. extracts 13, 14) etc. A blind adherence to the format also results in crazy orthographical errors. In fact, the stereotyped format invariably cast its shadow on the language by making it quite rigid. The chain of action in this regard goes as follows: for a valid processing of a deed or appeal or plaint or affidavit and the like a mechanical adherence to the format is imperative at every level of the legal sector. A minor technical error may lead to the rejection of the matter. So the personnel, starting from the judge, lawyer down to the record-keeper, benchclerk and clerk, whoever is involved in the system, have to learn carefully the

particulars of the formats either on their own or through special training. Innumerable books that teach these formats are available in the market. Formats always take shape through language. The learners learn the format along with the language from the books. Thus both the format and the language gain immense rigidity. The legal sector insists on systematization in legal proceedings for enhancing its efficiency. The three major steps that were taken to ensure this are i) creating the posts of lawyers, appointing lawyers and fixing their fees (1793), ii) introducing model forms in Bangla for the purpose of appeal, case filing, moving plaint, application and so on in the court and other allied offices (1839), and iii) declaring the will of Rupchand Dhar made in 1817 as the model for the future wills (1817). Needless to say, these systematizing steps too contributed to the rigidity of the language used for these procedural purposes. A few linguistic traits of this rigidity are as follows: i. sdhu variety Bangla is a language with diglossia. The high and low varieties are called the sdhu and the calit respectively. Of these two it is the sadhu variety that is marked (the difference is especially visible in the case of the verbal and pronominal forms) and is comparatively archaic and artificial; whereas the calit is free flowing (in all respects, including verbs and pronouns) and very close to the spoken variety. In the legal field both the codificational and the procedural Bangla use the sadhu variety. In the formersubfield, apart from the sadhu verbal and pronominal forms, it is also the Sanskrit and Persian words, the obsolete affixes and the indirect voice that assign a low comprehensibility to the language of the early documents, while late documents show only the sadhu verbal and pronominal forms and are translatable into spoken Bangla with very little effort. In other words, documents of the later period in this subfield exhibit a higher degree of transparency and comprehensibility. Compared to this procedural Bangla, irrespective of the period that a particular document may belong to, contains a remarkable number of archaic components. For example, even the deeds executed in 1998 (cf. extract 14) show archaic linguistic features belonging to different levels like kasya khoskobl dalilpatra midam kryyncge; tyksdi dy diy; ekata tnabbai ket mabalage; mr yathyogya in male siba; svatvya; kharidsvatve; nibyudha etc.

In brief, compared to the language of the early documents of procedural Bangla that of the late documents show a higher degree of comprehensibility, but compared to the documents of codificational Bangla of the same age all procedural Bangla shows a remarkably low degree of comprehensibility as it is a variety quite remote from authentic speech. ii. Sentence length Punctuation was hardly present in early Bangla prose. The documents of this age are marked by paragraph-sentences, i.e. one sentence amounts to one paragraph. Likewise, the early documents of codificational Bangla too present paragraphsentences, while late documents exhibit paragraphs composed of smaller sentences. In contrast, paragraph-sentences are a characteristic feature of the procedural Bangla throughout its history. iii. Crazy errors Psycholinguists differentiate between errors and mistakes. Errors are the results of incomplete knowledge while mistakes are the results of carelessness. For the current purpose I prefer the term error as the inaccuracies in writing that I indicate here are made at the clerical level because of lack of competence. The documents of the procedural Bangla show such crazy errors. They are the results of blind adherence to the format by people with insufficient grammatical knowledge. For example, crazy segmentations like delidiiben, deli dite (cf. extract 11); kasyabikray-kobl, patramidam (cf. extract 13), dalilpatra midam (cf. extract 14); crazy spellings like kryyanca (cf. extract 10), kryancge (cf. extract 13), kryyncge (cf. extract 14) etc. In case of the codificational Bangla the materials are translated by well educated competent translators. That is why crazy errors are hardly found in these documents. iv. Archaic spelling The codificational Bangla generally conforms to the then rules of standardizing writing and spelling, while the users of the procedural Bangla hardly cared for

10

these. To be more specific, the matters of the procedural Bangla are mostly dictated by the competent judges and lawyers to their clerks who are not aware of the current rules of spelling and writing. Hence they continue with archaic spellings. For example, karatah, nirddy, hn, oyrn etc. Because of the presence of the above linguistic traits the procedural Bangla becomes quite rigid and is commonly considered a variety far away from the day to day Bangla. That is, in brief, the procedural Bangla has a very low comprehensibility whereas the codificational Bangla exhibits normal comprehensibility. CONCLUSION Between codificational Bangla and procedural Bangla the latter appears to be a relatively interesting subfield that will repay further study. This variety emerged in the legal field at the site where the ruler and the ruled faced each other the ruled with the urge to get justice; the ruler with the intention of systematizing the proceedings. Follow the format was the prime condition put forth by the colonial ruler to the ruled; while a blind adherence to that was the response on the part of the colonized. In this warp and woof the language lost its comprehensibility by gaining rigidity. In other words, the low comprehensibility of procedural Bangla is one of the outcomes of the colonial legacy, which is still maintained in the legal sector. Even today both in the Parliament and in the Assembly Indian Laws are enacted in English and then are translated into various Indian languages. The language of the legal education, viz. a bachelors or a masters degree course in Law or in Judicial Science, is strictly English. Only in lower courts are regional languages allowed for procedural purposes and there the language in use retains its low comprehensibility. Bangla is not an exception. Bayer (1986:58) points out some problems of courtroom Tamil and Kannada in terms of code-switching and code-mixing. In fact, since ages people are conscious about the rigidity of the legal language. As far back as 1776 Jeremy Bentham (cited from Hager, 1959) insisted that the law ought to be codified in such clear language that the ordinary people could understand their legal rights. In 1969 Crystal & Davy studied the structural and organizational characteristics of English legal texts and proposed that the legal language is an instrumental language, i.e. it is used to record contracts, impose conditions, confer rights and privileges etc. The style of the legal variety, as stated in Bayer (1986: 46), is
peculiar, the sentences are long. It has many distinctive characteristics. It limits the use of

11

pronouns, truncated verb phrases in favour of repetition in order to minimize confusion and ambiguity. And semantic principles not generally used in ordinary English are used in legal documents.

In case of Bangla the inherent rigidity of legal English combined with the impact of colonialism to result in the systematic low comprehensibility observed in legal Bangla. In 1976-1980, under President Jimmy Carter, the United States opted for Plain Language Legislation in order to simplify the legal language. In order to achieve effective communication in the legal field the points of rigidity, i.e. the points of low comprehensibility in language have to be identified and amended. This process will make the legal language intelligible to the consumers of law, one of the basic requirements of any society. APPENDIX 1. 1785 Regulations for the Administration of Justice in the Courts of Dewanee Adaulut by Jonathan Duncan. sadar deoyni dlate yadi kona piler bisayte eman jn jy je maphasval dlate se bisayer smudyik bicr hay nhi kimb r kona kran janye sadar deoyni dlate yadyapi ucit bujhen tabe nutan sks ye bayak hay th laiy piler bicr o nispatti kariben athab sei bisayke gnpatra sambalita punaca sei maphasval dlate pthiben. (pp.190-1) 2. 1791 Bengal Translation of Regulation for the Administration of Justice, in the Fauzdari or Criminal Courts, in Bengal, Behar and Orissa by Neil Benjamin Edmundstone. seoyy mahlt mutluke ahar mursidbd o ajimbd o jhgir nagar je ei tin mokme dlate sirist lhid mokarar haila r ei din dlater elky sara sheb jildiger tajbijmate haite manjur haila ebam setty ahar kalikt jebara dlater tbe che jri thkibek. 3. 1793 Government Regulations for 1793 by Henry Pitts Forster. klektar daibdhin marile kimb skst n thkile athab pani krya haite sthnntare gele tathkr eiten artht chota shebdiger mardde je keha agraganya thken sei sheb klektr sakal krya kariben ebam e prakre deoyn

12

prabhrti mlr sei eiten sheber tbe rahiy thr hukumate bisay bypr cliben. 4. 1828 dlat timir nak by Sri Ram Mohun Roy, published by the writer, printed at Mahendralal Press, Kolkata. jajshebke ksamat che ye san 1812 ler 5 iner samparkya makarddam klektar sheb kimb rejestr shebke bicr kran arpan karen ebam basyak mate panio thr bicr karite prabartta haite pren. (pp. 245) 5. 1927-28 (B.S. 1334) deoyn kryya iks o dalilcandrik by Gangopadhyay (1st print 1913) (The first name of the writer could not be traced from the defaced book). cri batsar paryanta khjnr janya nli kar cale. bstujamr khjnr bbad nli haile tin batsarer be khjnr db kar cale n tabe rejestr ptt kabulati thkile 6 batsarer khjnr nli kar jy. ihi haila pribhi kunsiler najr. (pp. 17) 6. 1981 dalil likhan o rejistrean paddhati by Sri Debiprasad Mukhopadhyay, Academic Publishers, Kolkata, New Delhi, (1st Print 1966). dhr 62: (1) 19 dhrmate ajn bhsy likhita kona dalil nibandhkaraner janya dkhil kar haile ukta daliler anubd yathyatha rejistrr bahite ml daliler nyy nakal kar haibe ebam ukta anubd o ajn bhsy likhita ml daliler kapiti rejistrean aphise phil kar thkibe. (pp. 40) 7. 1802 lipiml (caitanyadeber bibaran) by Ramram Basu. kintu bhattcrya yh ekbr adhyyan karn th tatksant abhys hay e mata utpanna medh ebam yh pther madhye ise ni tho uniy abagata eman rutidhar r rpabn ebam kamalnga bkya amrta tattulya ihte srbbabhauma bismaypanna haiy bibecan karilen e blak kadca smnya nahe ihr tadanta r kichu thkibek thr sandeha ni. 8. 1840 iusebadhi (a brief translation from English, in accordance with the instructions of the Principals of the Hindu College, for the use in pthl (primary level)).

13

mrthane parjita haiy prsyner svadee pratygaman karibte thdiger rj deriyas grkdiger sahit svayam yuddha karibr manastha kariychilen kintu thr lokntar haibte thr putra jarkses ijipt de jay kariy harsacitta prbak thr pitr abhipreta grkdeya yuddhe prabarta hailen eikle grkera anynya bisayer nyy yuddha bisayeo nipun haiychila. 9. A tax-exemption certification issued by Nawab Khan Ali Khan in 1641 (cited from Nath 1984: 43). jagannth deb thkur naobb khne li khnlikhitam chaudhuriym okmguyn paragan boro darun sarkr stgu jygr ryuta shebju mauje jagannthpur khrij jjama ryuta sebr arthe darobasta hsil o jangal baosm bachipu sajjal sthale debottar dilm jutiy jotiy r rjb adhikar seb karaha kasmin kle ihr jamr sahit dy nani ht sane jam chila th sar paragany dil iti 1060 hjr sti 19 ramjn. 10. A Will executed in August, 1781 (cited from Nath, 2001) likhitam r jugal kior dhyasya uil patramidam kryyanca ge mi mr str rmati kiori dsi o mr putra r nandall dhyake svaisas prbbak mr isteter jint ekyekiutars karilm mr dault o ml ogayaraha samher mlik karilm. 11. A Petition filed before the Civil Court in 1790 (cited from Nath 1984: 39) r ray hari san 1096. mahmahim dayni dlater syut sheb barbaresu - raj s rmknta candra sh bisnupur m r sadrm mohanta cakl tath sh ids makadam ihr sthne mr ek kty tamasu di a tah 500 pcata tk r cat bbud 50 panc tank ekune 550 pcata panc tank svararati kari dey n ekrane nlis heb dharmma abatr hakak dlat kariy m dlatke hukum kari mr tk deli dite hukum haibek mi garib sheb dharmma abatr mr pane nek najar kariay delidiiben i raj nibedan karilm san 1096 sl th 22 dh12. 1885 dalilbal by Sri Bisvambhar Charan Das, published & printed by B.L. Chakrabarty, The New School Book Press, Kolkata.

14

likhitam r mbar l pchare mrta bdul l ds sm pam tath byabas sirsdr jti musalmn. asya jam jami bikray kabal patramidam. mr kharid mirs jil rhatter antahpt chok karimganjer sabrejistarr o ltu steaner adhn pam brpr 62/7 nam tluk sarip kh mot sadar jam mam 3|0 tk madhye |0 cri pani rasade mah da |0 tera n jam o tatsamkrnta sarbaprakr bhme mi kharidsvatve svatvabn dakhalkr chi. (A model format of conveyance, pp. 12) 13. 1981 dalil likhan o rejistrean paddhati by Sri Debiprasad Mukhopadhyay, Academic Publishers, Kolkata, New Delhi, (1st Print 1966). kret bikret 1. ____ ml 2. ____ sammatidt

kasyabikray-kobl patramidam kryancge. nimner taple biesbhbe barnita sampatti my dvital imrat, dren, pykhn, gys o ilektrik phitim ittydi yh che sei samasta ijment rit titel o intrest prabhrti ye kichu svatva-svmitva o adhikr mr che sei samasta svatver darabastu hakuk pnke 30,000 (tri hjr) tky bikray karilm. .mibarnita sampatti drgha ___ batsarkle nibyudha svatve svatvabn haiy dakhlikr chi. anya khro thte svatva ni. kintu tatsattveo pni mr bhrt r ____ ke sammatignpak paksarpe dalilkhnite sampdan svarpe svksar n karile ukta sampatti kray karite asvkr kary mr bhrt ebam mi dalilkhni pnr anukle sampdan kariy dilm. ukta sampattite mder ye kona adhikr b svatva chila th rahit haiy uttardhikr b aysini prabhrti stre tatsamasta pnte bartila. (Conveyance, pp. 243-4) 14. A conveyance executed in 1998 kret. bikret..

kasya khoskobl dalilpatra midam kryyncge: jel brbhm thn bolpur antargata mauj goylpr smnasthita nicer tapler sampatti prbe mder pit ___ mahayer svatvya dakhl sampatti chila ebam thr nme ei maujr r. es. 195 nambar khatiyn haite yathyathabhbe park pibe.

15

eksane tapl likhita sampatti munphbihn thky uh bikray karatah anyatra subidhjanak sampatti kharid kariba ei prakr manastha kariy uh bikrayer prastb karile pni uh sarbocca 39800 nacalli hjr tata tk mlye kharid karite sammata hailen ebam mro ukta mlya nyyya o samayocita haiyche jniy ukta pane taple likhita sampatti pnke bikray kariy thte pnke khs dakhal diy ekkln cira nihsvatva o dakhalcyuta hailm. .. pnke bikrta nimna taple likhita sampatti samprna nirddy abasthy rahiyche. .mdiger uparokta uktir konati asatya b tancak prak pile b pnr kharidsvatve kona prakr hn haile mr yathyogya in male siba. . pni adyakr trikh haite nimna taple likhita sampattir nibyudha svatve svatvabn haiy yathsthne mdiger nm khrij karatah mdiger nmer sthale pnr nija nm pattan prbak yathyathabhbe pnr nija nme tyksdi dy diy nija nme rasid grahane putra pautrdi oyrin o sthalbhisiktagan krame yadicch bhogdakhal karite thkun. panbbad grhta tkr jy:bhratya rijrbh bymker ekata tkr not ekata tnabbai ket mabalage 19800ni hjr tata tk. yh mdigake itiprbe agrim dy diychen. REFERENCES Bayer, Jennifer M. 1986. Language, Law and National Integration. CIIL. Mysore. Bhattacharya, Ramkrishna. 2001. bml bhsr atrumitra. in Sikkhadarpan (supplement). March 2001. 14-7. Crystal, David & Derek Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Dan, Mina. 2002. ini bml. in Ababhas. 2nd yr. No.1. April. 55-72. Hager, John. 1959. Lets Simplify Legal Language. Rocky Mountain Law Review. 32: 74-86. Khan, Dr. Manilal. 2000. bml calit gadya. Sonar Tari. Kolkata. Nath, Purnendunath. 1984. baml bhsy incarcr dhr. Subarnarekha. Kolkata. ______ 2001. dui ataker uiler loke bnl samj. in Udbodhan. 103rd yr. Asvin. No. 9. 729-32. Scovel, Thomas. 1998 Psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press. Sen, Sukumar. 1998 (1st ed. 1934). bngl shitye gadya. Ananda. Kolkata.

16

17