Verse 8.154

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

ऋणं दातुमशक्तो यः कर्तुमिच्छेत् पुनः क्रियाम् ।
स दत्त्वा निर्जितां वृद्धिं करणं परिवर्तयेत् ॥ १५४ ॥

ṛṇaṃ dātumaśakto yaḥ kartumicchet punaḥ kriyām |
sa dattvā nirjitāṃ vṛddhiṃ karaṇaṃ parivartayet || 154 ||

He who, unable to repay the debt, wishes to renew the contract, shall change the bond, after paying the accrued interest.—(154)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If a man, having his wealth reduced, is unable to pay the doubled principal, he should be made to renew the contract, and to ‘change the deed’—i.e., the document properly attested. But he should pay the interest that has already accrued.

This is an exception to what has been said as to the creditor not receiving more than double of bis principal;—since the loan-transaction remains in force.

“How does it follow that there is an exception to the non-exceeding of the double?”

Because in this case there is nothing to show whether further interest accrues upon the principal along with the accrued interest, or upon the principal only; all that is mentioned is the ‘renewal of the contract,’ which is explained in other words—‘he shall change the bond.’

“If further interest does not accrue on past interest, for what purpose should the bond be altered?”

The answer is as follows:—When interest has ceased to accrue, and the money is not paid, there is every possibility of laxity (on the part of the debtor), and of the witnesses (of the old document), forgetting all about the transaction; and a debt thus ignored for ten years would become non-payable; as has been declared in the following text.—‘Where a document is ignored for ten years, there can be no suit on its basis; especially in the case of assaults (?).’

This is how it has been explained by older writers.

The following verse (from Nārada, 131) lays down the favour that the king may show towards the debtor:

If by lapse of time the debtor becomes bereft of the capacity to pay, he should be made to pay the debt according to hit capacity, taking into consideration the time and place and the rate of interest.

[The meaning of this is as follows]—

If, through evil fate, the debtor becomes reduced to poverty, he shall not he chastised with imprisonment in the jail and soforth. “What is there to be done?” Whenever he should happen to have any property at all, he should be made to repay the debt by small instalments;—this is what is meant by the phrase ‘according to his capacity.’ This is what is going to be described as—‘the debt should he liquidated even by bodily labour, etc., etc.’ (8.177.)

In view of this text, the use of altering the bond is just as we have explained above.

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Karaṇa’—‘Written bond’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘written bond and witnesses’ (Medhātithi).

This verse is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 193), which adds the following explanation:—‘When the time for repayment arrives, if the debtor, find himself unable to pay the whole amount due—the principal along with accrued interest,—and the creditor is unwilling to keep the loan hanging,—and should wish to renew the transaction on the same terms, he should pay the accrued interest and renew the bond, dated afresh with the new date.’

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 72), as laying down one of the methods of ‘compound interest.’ It adds the following notes:—‘Nirjitām,’ legally due to the creditor; of this accrued interest he should pay either the whole, or a part only, and add the remainder to the principal and renew the bond for the total;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 19b);—in Kṛtyakalpataru (80a), which explains ‘nirjitām’ as ‘determined to have already accrued to the creditor,’—and ‘karaṇ am parivartayet’ as ‘should write another document attested by fresh witnesses’;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 104a).

At the end of Adhyāya VIII, Mandlik has printed the following verse with Medhātithi’s explanation thereupon—

atha śaktivihīnaḥ syād ṛṇī kālaviparyayāt |
śakyaprekṣam ṛṇaṃ dāpyaḥ kāle deśe yathodayam ||

This verse, though commented upon by Medhātithi, has been omitted by all other commentators.

It is found in Nārada (131.) It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 71) as from Nārada; it explains ‘Śaktivihīnaḥ’ as ‘without ability to repay the debt,’ and ‘kālaviparyayāt’ as ‘on account of famine and so forth.’

The verse is not Manu’s, it is Nārada’s; and it has been only quoted by Medhātithi and explained by him in course of his comment on verse 159.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.154-155)

Nārada (1.131, 134).—‘When a debtor has been disabled by a reverse of fortune (from paying the debt), he shall be made to discharge the debt gradually, according to bis means, as he happens to gain wealth. If the debtor, owing to a calamity, has not means sufficient to discharge the whole debt, the claim of the creditor shall be entered in a legal document, specifying the caste (of the parties), their names and names of their neighbours.’

Bṛhaspati (11.47, 60).—‘A loan shall be restored on demand, if no time has been fixed; or on the expiry of the time, if time has been fixed; or when interest ceases. When the time fixed for payment has elapsed, and the interest has ceased, the creditor may either recover his loan or cause a new bond to be written in the form of compound interest.’

Bhāradvāja (Parāśaramādhava-Vyava., p. 193).—‘If the debtor has no money to repay the debt, he shall liquidate it by giving grains, gold, or cattle, or clothes, slaves or conveyances.’