The land as the object of family division in an ancient Georgian law

Mariam Khoperia

The land as the object of family

division in an ancient Georgian law

Studia Prawnoustrojowe nr 26, 115-120

2014

M ariam K h op eria

Iv a n e J a v a k h is h v ili T b ilis i S ta te U n iv e r s ity T b ilisi, G e o rg ia

T he la n d a s th e o b ject o f fa m ily d iv isio n

in a n a n c ie n t G eo rg ia n la w

T h e e m e rg e n c e o f th e fa m ily d iv o rce is d ire c tly r e l a t e d d is r u p tio n of a la r g e fa m ily in s titu tio n . O n th e b a s is o f th e so c ie ty ’s e v o lu tio n , th e p ro c e ss o f la r g e fa m ilie s ’ d is s o lu tio n w a s b e c o m in g in te n s iv e in G e o rg ia a s w ell, as e v id e n c e d b y th e fa c t t h a t b y th e e n d o f X IX c e n tu r y a n d b e g in n in g o f XX c e n tu r y th e n u m b e r o f th e la r g e o f fa m ilie s s ig n ific a n tly r e d u c e d in a ll re g io n s o f G e o rg ia .

A c c o rd in g to S h . L. M o n te s q u ie u , “T h e fa m ily is a c e r ta in fo rm o f p r o p e r ­ t y ”1, i.e. i t is c o n s id e re d a fa m ily -o w n e d m o v a b le a n d im m o v a b le p ro p e rty , as u su a lly , th e f ir s t s ig n s o f p r iv a te p r o p e r ty w e re e m e rg e d in fa m ily its e lf. T h e in c r e a s in g p ro c e ss o f la r g e fa m ily d is in te g r a tio n a n d g r a d u a l r e p la c e m e n t b y in d iv id u a l fa m ilie s w a s fo llo w ed m a in ly b y d iv is io n - d is tr ib u tio n o f co m m o n fa m ily p ro p e rty , w h ic h lik e a ll c o u n tr ie s o f th e c iv iliz e d w o rld , s u b s ta n tia lly c h a n g e d th e s t r u c t u r e o f th e fa m ily in G e o rg ia a s w ell.

H e r e b y s h o u ld a lso b e n o te d t h a t th e p r o p e r ty r ig h ts o f la r g e fa m ilie s on m o v a b le a n d im m o v a b le p ro p e rty , s u c h a s la n d , h o u s e , m ill, c a ttle a n d o th e r ty p e p ro p e rty , w a s o f a fa m ily -g ro u p n a t u r e , b e in g c o n s id e re d th e m a in d if f e r e n tia tin g s ig n b e tw e e n a la r g e a n d s m a ll fam ily. T h e re fo re , “I n c o n d i­ tio n s o f s u c h o w n e r s h ip p u r c h a s e a n d s a le o f a l a n d w a s p o s s ib le o n ly w ith th e jo in t a g r e e m e n t o f a ll a d u lt fa m ily m e m b e r s ”2.

T h is tim e I w o u ld lik e to d r a w y o u r a t t e n t i o n to th e r u le s o f th e la n d d is p o s a l in th e la r g e fa m ily d iv isio n . T h is p ro c e ss, in t u r n , w a s r e la te d to a n u m b e r o f socio-econom ic r e a s o n s , a s a f te r d iv is io n o f a la r g e fam ily , th e p r o p e r ty w a s fo rm e d a s in d e p e n d e n t, d e ta c h e d fo rm o f o w n e r s h ip in e a c h o f th e m . T h e le g a l n o rm s , r e l a t e d to fa m ily d iv o rc e a n d p r o p e r ty d is tr ib u tio n

1 Sh. L. Montesquieu, Mind of laws, Tbilisi 1994, p. 495.

116

and property distribution were regulated by relevant rules of customary law.

“Family divorce, as well as resolution of other topical issues of family and

community life, was mainly based on the traditional folk law”

.

Like many countries, the land in Georgia, the country with small territo­

ry, has always been the object of special attention out of all property objects.

By the ownership the land was divided into: the state, community, family,

and church-owned lands in respect of which the land was subjected to a variety

Legal regulations.

The most important type of a large family real estate was agricultural

lands. The lands of the aforementioned category in the mountainous regions

of Georgia were mainly located in the rural area, while some of them in the

form of small plots were scattered in the outskirts of the settlement areas,

on the slopes of nearby mountains and the forest line

.

In numerous acts that reached the present day three main types of the

family division of the property are noted: household, cattle, estates. For

example, in a 1731-year-old document there is mentioned division of the

estate between the brothers Mamulashvili, when the family community-

owned facilities, cattle and inheritance lands was divided in equal shares of

brotherhood.

In the old days, when a large family was divided in Georgia, family-

owned objects of all kinds were subjected to division; division of movable

things was solved relatively easily. Great attention was given to dividing

persons’ rights on a family real estate, especially on the land, division of

which was done in compliance with much more complex regulations.

This difficulty was determined by the prevailing view of society: the

ancestral land should be distributed among sons, because it must not appear

in ownership of the other family. By the customary law, all brothers, living in

a large family, were equal and got an equal share of the father’s inheritance.

Movable property was subjected to division as well as all endowment and

buildings-facilities. The land was equally distributed among all the partici­

pants, it was not allowed that only one co-owner took arable lands, the other

hay lands, the third one cattle, etc.

In most cases, co-ownership of the land plots among the owners was

determined by the actual non-division of the land. If the size of the land was

small, and the number of owners large, then in result of dividing there were

created small plots of land unfit for cultivation, which were losing all the

economic purpose and value. Therefore, in this case a co-owners of the same

family preferred collective ownership to division of the land

.

3 Ibidem, p. 99. 4 Ibidem, p. 52.

5 Свод материалов no изученью экономического быта государственных крестьян Закавказского

“S o m e tim e s , w h e n a l a n d d iv isio n w a s n o t p o ssib le , t h e y fo u n d a w a y o u t in in te r - c o m p a r is o n 6 o f th e la n d s , in th i s c a se , th e fo llo w in g c irc u m s ta n c e s w e re t a k e n in to ac c o u n t:

1. T h e l a n d is lo c a tio n - n e a r o r afa r, l a n d q u a lity a n d its y ield;

2. T h e fa c t t h a t a la n d o f a lr e a d y s m a ll a r e a w a s d iffic u lt to b e s u b je c te d to p a r titio n in g , 3. A lso, t h a t “B y o b ta in in g o f a n y o f its s h a r e r s e n r ic h m e n t o f th e n e w ly e s ta b lis h e d fa m ily w a s e x p e c te d ”7. I n th i s c a se , s h a r e r s w e re le a v in g i t s h a r e d a n d s u c h p lo ts r e m a in e d a n a n c e s tr a l p r o p e r ty a n d s e p a r a te fa m ilie s a n d c o m m u n itie s p o s s e s s e d a n d u s e d th e m o n th e b a s is o f m u t u a l a g r e e m e n t. F r u i t g a r d e n , p a d d o c k s , s u m ­ m e r p a s t u r e s , fo re s ts , a n d s o m e tim e s , e v e n h a y o r a r a b le l a n d s 8. R u r a l h o u s e w ith o u t a l a n d w a s r a r e . T h e h o u s e a n d fa m ily w a s i n t e ­ g r a lly r e l a t e d w ith th e la n d . O n ly a p e r s o n o w n in g a l a n d co u ld c r e a te a s e p a r a te in d e p e n d e n t fam ily. B y t h e c u s to m a r y law , a m a n w a s c o n s id e re d to b e th e f o u n d e r o f th e h o u s e , so th e m a le h e ir h a d th e a d v a n ta g e o f a la n d p lo t in h e r ita n c e .

I t s h o u ld b e a lso h ig h lig h te d t h a t th e i n h e r ita n c e w a s e q u a lly d i s t r i b u ­ te d a m o n g th e m a le su c c e sso rs. A lth o u g h t h e r e s o lu tio n w a s a p p lie d o n ly to n o b le s, it is h a r d to a d m it t h a t in th e life o f th e p e a s a n ts , w h o w e re th e fo u n d e rs a n d p ro te c to rs o f th e s e c u s to m s , th e e ld e r b r o th e r s a n d y o u n g e r b r o t h e r s ’ r ig h ts w e re n o t e s ta b lis h e d a n d th e e ld e r b r o th e r s h a d n o a d v a n t a ­ g es o v e r y o u n g e r o n e s 9; a n d i t s e e m s t h a t th e a s s o c ia te d a d v a n ta g e s a n d lim ita tio n s do n o t e x ist. T h e p r in c ip le o f e q u a l d iv is io n is n o t follow ed, w h e n th e i n h e r ita n c e is p a s s e d to th e se c o n d r a n g e h e ir s o r g r a n d c h ild r e n . G r a n d ­ f a t h e r ’s i n h e r ita n c e is d iv id e d a m o n g g r a n d c h ild r e n , n o t p e r c a p u t b u t by s e q u e n c e 10, b u t b y th e la te g r a n d f a t h e r ’s so n s. F o r e x a m p le , i f th e d e c e a se d p e a s a n t h a d tw o g r a n d c h ild r e n fro m o n e so n , a n d th r e e g r a n d c h ild r e n fro m th e se c o n d so n , th e in h e r ita n c e is d iv id e d n o t in to five, b u t tw o p a r t s , so t h a t e a c h g r a n d c h ild o f th e o n e so n g e ts a q u a r t e r o f th e e n tir e in h e r ita n c e , w h ile e a c h g r a n d c h ild o f th e o th e r s o n g e ts o n ly s ix th p a r t o f it. A s fo r th e sid e -lin e r e la tiv e , w e w ill n o t b e a b le to a n s w e r h o w m a n y o r b y w h a t s e q u e n c e th e y g e t s h a r e .

A c c o rd in g to th e e th n o g r a p h ic m a te r ia ls , th e fa m ilie s , w h ic h in d e a lin g th e fa m ily p r o p e r ty d is tr ib u tio n d id n o t n e e d t h e in te r f e r e n c e o f o th e r p e r ­ so n s a n d c o n s id e re d s h a m e f u l o th e r s ’ a s s is ta n c e in d is tr ib u tio n of p ro p e rty ,

6 T. Achugba, op. cit., p. 102-103. 7 Ibidem, p. 110.

8 Ibidem.

9 See the edition of “Юридическое Обозрение”.

10 As for the division of the inheritance by generations, the materials do not contain direct instructions. Our conclusion is based on the examination of Mr. Nosovich, where he describes sequence of the family land / profit use - The materials, vol. II, part 2, p. 274.

118

d e s e rv e d re s p e c t. H o w ev er, th e r e w e re so m e c a s e s w h e n a l a n d d iv is io n w as t h e “a p p le o f d is c o rd ” b e tw e e n c e r t a i n c o m m u n itie s a n d p u b lic e n t i t i e s 11. In t h is c a se , t h e y s a y iro n ic a lly t h a t “H is m a t t e r s a r e so b a d t h a t h e n e e d s so m e o n e to m a k e a d e a l”, a n d in v ite d m e d ia to r s , “W ho h a d to b e v e r y p r u ­ d e n t, in p a r tic u la r , i n d iv is io n o f th e fa m ily e s ta te , a r a b le a n d h a y la n d , a s t h e la n d s d iffe re d fro m e a c h o th e r in q u a lity a n d close o r d i s t a n t lo c a tio n a s w ell. I n a d d itio n , th e la n d o f a lr e a d y s m a ll a r e a w a s h a r d ?? to b e s u b je c te d to p a r titio n in g . S o m e tim e s , w h e n th e la n d d iv is io n w a s n o t p o ssib le , p eo p le fo u n d a w a y o u t o f in th e la n d “in te r - c o m p a r is o n ”12, in w h ic h th e p lo t a n d p o s itio n a n d its y ie ld w e re c o n sid e re d .

I n p r o p e r ty d is tr ib u tio n th e e a r n e d l a n d (So w a s c a lle d “T h e l a n d e a r n e d w ith s w e a t”) a n d t h e in h e r ite d o r th e a n c e s tr a l la n d s w e re d is tin g u is h e d s e p a ra te ly . I n d iv is io n o f th e e a r n e d la n d s t h e i r s h a r e s re c e iv e d n o t o n ly th e su c c e s s o r so n s, b u t th e o ld e r c o u s in s , w h o w ith t h e i r la b o r a lso c o n tr ib u te d to th e in c r e a s e o f th e p r o p e r ty 13. T h u s , th e r ig h ts o f d is p o s a l o f th e e a r n e d p r o p e r ty w a s a p p lie d to a ll th e p a r tic ip a n ts o f th e fa m ily c o m m u n ity , a s th e y r e p r e s e n te d a n e w le g a l c a te g o r y o f th e fa m ily c o m m u n ity .

A s im ila r r u le w a s in force in o th e r n a tio n s a n d p e o p le s o f th e C a u c a s u s . I n o n e w o rd , “B y t h e c u s to m a r y law , o n ly m e n w e re c o n s id e re d to b e d ire c t su c c e sso rs. T h e fa m ily -o w n e d a r a b le l a n d a n d h a y la n d , r e m a in in g w ith o u t a su c c e sso r, w e re g iv e n to th e c o m m u n ity o w n e rs h ip . O th e r r e a l e s t a t e ( g a r ­ d e n , m ill, a g r ic u ltu r a l b u ild in g s ) a n d m o v a b le a s s e ts w e re g iv e n in to o w n e r ­ s h ip o f close r e la tiv e s ”14.

A c c o rd in g to t h e c u s to m s , a w o m a n c o u ld i n h e r i t o n ly th e m o v a b le p r o ­ p e r ty fro m h e r fa th e r. T h e w o m a n ’s p r o p e r ty r ig h ts o n im m o v a b le p ro p e rty , e s p e c ia lly la n d , w e re lim ite d e v e n i n h e r h u s b a n d ’s fam ily. T h e e x c e p tio n w a s th e w idow , w h o m a y b e a su c c e s s o r o f n o t o n ly so n s a n d g r a n d c h ild r e n , b u t a lso o f s id e - r e la tiv e s a n d p o s s e s s a la n d w ith o w n e rs h ip r ig h ts ; i f th e w id o w s ta y e d a t h o m e a n d r e f u s e d r e - m a r r ia g e , t h e n s h e h a d th e r ig h t to u s e la n d s p e r m a n e n tly , a n d i f th e w id o w m a r r ie d , s h e w a s lo s in g a ll c o n n e c ­ tio n w ith h e r h u s b a n d ’s fa m ily a n d r ig h ts to la n d . T h u s , th e d e c e a s e d m a n ’s w idow , te m p o r a r ily o r p e r m a n e n tly u s e d th e la n d , s h e h a d n o o th e r r ig h ts to th e la n d . H o w e v er, i n t h e X IX c e n tu ry , th e r e h a v e b e e n so m e e x c e p tio n s . F o r e x a m p le , a c c o rd in g to o n e o f th e R u s s ia n r e s e a r c h e r s (N o so v ich ), “A d a u g h ­ t e r w a s g iv e n a n e q u a l s h a r e o f h e r f a t h e r ’s l a n d a f te r m a r r ia g e ”15. I n o n e o f t h e re g io n s o f W e st G e o rg ia , n a m e ly , in O z u r g e ti p ro v in c e , sin c e th e X IX 11 Свод материаловъ..., p. 93. 12 T. Achugba, op. cit., p. 102-103.

13 Р.Л. Харадзе, Грузинская семейная община, Тбилиси 1960, vol. 1, p. 54-55.

14 R. Topchishvili, Ethnography of the peoples of the Caucasus, Tbilisi 2007, p. 345-346. 15 Свод материаловъ..., p. 839.

century the sisters are not only heirs with their brothers, but even had the

advantage, as compared with the relatives of the lateral line. If the daughter

was the sole heir, she received the land as the heir in the form of dowry, but

in the case of marriage the land ownership was transferred to her husband.

This was confirmed by Mr. Nosovich: division of the father’s property among

daughters was also done on the basis of equity / equal share. According to

the custom, all the daughters were equal.

* * *

Thus, based on a review of historical and ethnographic materials and

Georgian feudal law we tried to show the main aspects of the land legal

regulation in family divorce. It can be concluded that:

1. The large family was a land owner. According to ethnographic data,

the family ownership on real estate was determined by the principle of

blood, and it belonged to the men of a family. Head of the family, without

which even minor details could not be resolved, in plain as well as the

highland regions, could not manage family lands individually. He was obli­

ged to agree all issues related to the land with adult men in the family.

2. In the eastern region of Georgia (Kakheti), the family lands (The

garden, vineyard, vegetable garden), was equally divided among brothers,

also and cousins ??and nephews - the family members.

3. Unlike a large family, in an individual family, where lived only the

husband, wife and their children, since the head of the family was the

individual owner, the man-head of the family took decisions on family-owned

land individually.

4. Like the existing legal norms of civilized countries (I mean the Ro­

man, Greek law) Georgian customary law clearly established the legal regi­

me of the land in the family division, sharer subjects to the common land

and their shares, which clearly indicates the developed level of the Georgian

legal thinking.

Later, when the written memorials of law were created, the legislator

took decision in accordance with the actual situation, but also took into

consideration the ancient rules of the customary law.

120

S u m m a ry

The la n d as th e o b ject o f fa m ily d ivisio n

in a n a n c ie n t G eorgian la w

Key words: land, object, family, family division, property, ownership.

I n th e p r e s e n t a r tic le th e r e is d is c u s s e d o b je c ts o f fa m ily d iv is io n in a n c ie n t g e o rg ia n law . I n G e o rg ia la n d h a s a lw a y s b e e n th e o b je c t o f sp e c ia l a tte n tio n . B y th e o w n e rs h ip th e l a n d w a s d iv id e d in to : th e s ta te , c o m m u n ity , fam ily , a n d c h u rc h -o w n e d la n d s . T h e m o s t im p o r t a n t ty p e o f a la r g e fa m ily r e a l e s t a t e w a s a g r ic u ltu r a l la n d s . R u r a l h o u s e w ith o u t a l a n d w a s r a r e . T h e h o u s e a n d fa m ily w a s in te g r a lly r e l a t e d w ith th e la n d . O n ly a p e r s o n o w n in g a l a n d c o u ld c r e a te a s e p a r a t e in d e p e n d e n t fam ily. B y th e c u s to m a r y law , a m a n w a s c o n s id e re d to b e th e f o u n d e r o f th e h o u s e , so th e m a le h e i r h a d t h e a d v a n ta g e o f a l a n d p lo t in h e r ita n c e .