Verse 8.53

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

अदेश्यं यश्च दिशति निर्दिश्यापह्नुते च यः ।
यश्चाधरोत्तरानर्थान् विगीतान्नावबुध्यते ॥ ५३ ॥

adeśyaṃ yaśca diśati nirdiśyāpahnute ca yaḥ |
yaścādharottarānarthān vigītānnāvabudhyate || 53 ||

He who mentions the wrong place,—or who, having mentioned it, retracts,—or who does not understand that his previous and subsequent statements are contradictory;—(53)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said before that on the debtor denying the debt, the creditor complains to the King ,—i e., the complaint shall be lodged in the form—‘At such and such place, at such and such time, such and such an amount of money was borrowed from mo by this man’;—and on being questioned, he may say ‘I was not at the place at the time,’ referring to the place and time that have been alleged by him as those at which the money was borrowed: and in this case he ‘mentions the wrong place.’ Or, the term ‘deśa’ may stand for the witness; and the text means ‘if he cites as witness a person whose presence at the time and place of the transaction is impossible.’

Having alleged the place, time, etc., ‘if he retracts,’—saying ‘I did not say this.’

He who does not understand that his ‘previous statement’—what he had alleged before—and his ‘subsequent statement’—what he alleges afterwards—are ‘contradidory’;—or if he does not realise the discrepancy in his own behaviour.

‘Such a person shall be declared to have failed’—this verbal clause (occurring in verse 57) has to be construed with each verse (from 53 to 57).—(53)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Medhātithi is again misrepresented by Buhler; he does not read ‘apadeśyam’, the reading adopted by him being ‘adeśam’. Nārāyaṇa also reads the same, not ‘apadeśyam.’—Nandana reads ‘adeyam’, not ‘apadeśyam.’ Buhler has apparently confused verse 53 with 54, where Medhātithi reads ‘apadeśam’ for ‘apadeśyam.’

This verse is quoted in Smṛticandrikā (Vyavahāra, p. 108), which has the following explanation—‘One who cites an impossible witness, or having cited a possible one, says that he has not cited him, or one who does not perceive inconsistencies in his own statement, is to be non-suited;’—in Kṛtyakalpataru (p. 22b), which has the following notes:—‘Adeśam’ (which is its reading for ‘adeśyam’), a place where the parties have never met;—‘adharottarān arthān’, “former and latter”—‘vigītān’, contradictory;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 31b), which adds the following notes:—‘Ādeśyām dishati’, ‘says what is irrelevant or indecorous,—he who having said something says he did not say it’—‘who does not comprehend the inconsistencies in his own past and present statements’.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.53-57)

Yājñavalkya (2.16).—‘If one party tries to enforce his claim by himself, though it has been disputed,—or if on being called, he runs away, without saying anything, he should be non-suited and also fined.’

Kātyāyana (Smṛticandrikā-Vyavahāra, p. 107).—‘If a party on being directed to speak out, does not speak, he should be immediately confined; and on the next day he should be declared to be non-suited.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 621).—‘If a party proceeds to enforce his claim without applying to the King, he should be immediately punished and his claim not allowed.’

Nārada (2.32-33).—‘One who takes to flight after haying received the summons, one who remains silent, one who is convicted of untruth by the deposition of witnesses, and one who makes a confession himself;—these are the four kinds of persons defeated, avasanna. One who alters his former statements, one who shuns judicial investigation, one who fails to appear, one who makes no reply, one who absconds on receiving the summons;—these are the five kinds of persons non-suited, hīna.’

Nārada (2.41).—‘A man convicted by his own confession, one defeated through his own conduct, one whom the judicial investigation has proved to be in the wrong,—these three deserve to have their final defeat declared at the hands of judges.’

Bṛhaspati (5.5-6).—‘One who absconds after receiving the summons, one who remains silent, one convicted by the deposition of witnesses, and one who admits the correctness of the charge;—these are the four losers of the suit. One who absconds loses the suit after three fortnights; one who remains silent, after a week; one convicted by the deposition of witnesses and one who has confessed, immediately.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 622).—‘After having declared his plaint, if he renounces it and says something else, then, having taken up a different position, he becomes non-suited. Having reduced his statement to writing, if subsequently he says something more or less than that, he becomes non-suited. After having preferred his claim, if he says I did not say this, or if he contradicts his former statement, he also should he declared to he non-suited. After having named his witnesses, if he, of his own accord, does not bring them up for deposition, he should be declared to be non-suited, after thirty days.’