Bhūlōkamalladēva and his subordinate sakaraDēvachōlamahārāja, son of Bhimadēva.
24. Of the two inscriptions Nos. 276 and 315 of this dynasty, the former
secured at Kuṅkanūru in the Pattikonda taluk of the Kurnool district, belongs
to the reign of Bhūlōkamalladēva (Sōmēśvara III) and records a gift of land made
by Mahāmaṇ ḍalēśvara Sakara-dēvachōḷamahārāja, son of Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara
Bhīmadēva and Manneya Mācharasa to the temple of Rāmēśvaradēva at
Kukuvanūru in Sauḷu—70 included in
Naravāḍi 500 district on a day in Chāḷukyāvikrama (wrong for Bhūlōkamalla) year 3, Kīlaka (A.D. 1129-30), when the
king was camping at Jayantīpura. The chief Sakara-Dēvachōḷamahārāja is
called ‘ a jewelled lamp to the family to Kalikāla who had constructed the
embankment to the Kāvērī.’ From this epithet and from the title ‘ Dēvachōḷamahārāja’ applied to him, he may be supposed to be a prince of the
Telugu-Chōḷa family, though his place in the genealogy cannot be definitaly
ascertained. A record from Peddamuḍiyam (No. 347 of 1905) mentions a
certain Mahāmaṇḍalēśvara Bhīmarasa as a feudatory of Jagadēkamalla II (A.D. 1138-1149), who may probably be connected with the Bhīmadēva
of the present record. Since the latter’s son Sakara lived in the time of
Bhūlōkamalla, the predecessor of Jagadēkamalla II, and Bhīmarasa’s family
name is not disclosed in the inscription, the proposed connection can only be
established by future discoveries of a more definite character. It is noteworthy
that the village Kukuvanūru is called in the inscription as a Ghaṭikāsthāna i.e.
a seminary. Naravāḍi—500, where this village was situated is probably the
same as Naḷavāḍi-vishaya which comprised a portion of the Kurnool district.
The existence of Western Chāḷukya sway in the Kurnool and Anantapur districts
and of a line of Telugu-Chōḍa feudatories under them is testified to by a
number of stone inscriptions secured in that area.*
Trailokyamalla Hemmāḍ dēva-Mahārēja,a Chāḷukya chief.
25. The other record (No. 315) mentions a hitherto unknown chief Mahāmaṇdalēśvara Trailōkyamalla Hemmāḍidēva-Mahārāja and is dated in the Bhūlōka[malla*] year 54, Durmati. Since the name of the chief is familiar among the
Western Chāḷukyas and the date refers to the Bhūloka [malla*] reckoning
the record may be considered to be a
Chāḷukyan document. But the period
when the chief flourished is not easy to determine as the date offers a little
difficulty for calculation. The cyclic year Durmati did not fall in the reign of
Bhūlōkamalla nor did it correspond to the 54th year of the Bhūlōkamalla era.
It, however, corresponded to the 74th year of this era which fell in A.D. 1221-
02. The text Bhulōkad-eyyattanālkaneya is evidently a mistake for Bhulōkadeppattanālkaneya and if this emendation is accepted, we must search for a
Western Chalukya chief in about A.D. 1200 in the Cuddapah distrcit. The
mention of Bhūlōkamalla era in the Cuddapah distrcit in the 13th century
A.D. is a reminiscence of the Western Chāḷukya sway in the tract which was
immediatly under the Telugu-Chōḍas in that period.
* See No. 566 of 1915 ; Nos. 15, 34 and 40 of 1917 ; see Part II of the Ep. Rep. for 1906 (pp. 61 ff.); for 1917 (pp. 112 ff.); for 1923 (pp. 101 ff.).