Chitradurga Paleyagar Family History
The Chitradurga Paleyagar family was of the Beda or Boyar caste, and was one of the hill tribes who subsisted by hunting and tending cattle. The accounts of their origin are somewhat confused. According to one tradition, three Beda families emigrated from Jadikal-durga, in Tirupati, and settled at Nirutadi near Bharamasangara Nayaka in about 1475. They are said to have belonged to the Kamageti family and Valmiki gotra. The son and the grandson of one of these, Hire Hanummappa Nayaka and Timmanna Nayaka, settled at Matti in Davangere taluk. The latter, called Kamageti Timmanna Nayaka, was appointed by the Vijayanagara king, first as the Nayaka of Holalkere, then of Hiriyur, and finally of Chitradurga. He fortified the hill at Chitradurga and conducted himself in such a manner that a force was sent by the king against him. According to another account, Timmanna Nayaka came with a small body of armed men from a place called Madakeri below the ghats near Tirupati and entered the service of the Paleyagar of Basavapattana. Later, as some quarrel arose about a mistress he had kept at Matti, he left the place and took refuge at Mayakonda. Pursued there as well, he escaped to the jungle near Guntur, and after collecting a band, started plundering the area and erected a small fort called Rangapatna near Haleyur. The neighbouring Paleyagars of Harapanahalli, Nidugal, and Basavapattana, being annoyed by his depredations, united against him and, with the aid of some Vijayanagara troops, marched upon Rangapatna. Timmanna Nayaka was then forced to retire to Chitradurga, where he was closely besieged. At that time the following incident occurred, which led to his recognition as one of the chiefs dependent on Vijayanagara. This was in about 1562.
Read more about this topic: Madakari Nayaka
Famous quotes containing the words family and/or history:
“A ball player’s got to be kept hungry to become a big leaguer. That’s why no boy from a rich family ever made the big leagues.”
—Joe Dimaggio (b. 1914)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)