Verse 8.159

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

प्रातिभाव्यं वृथादानमाक्षिकं सौरिकां च यत् ।
दण्डशुल्कावशेषं च न पुत्रो दातुमर्हति ॥ १५९ ॥

prātibhāvyaṃ vṛthādānamākṣikaṃ saurikāṃ ca yat |
daṇḍaśulkāvaśeṣaṃ ca na putro dātumarhati || 159 ||

But the son shall not be liable to pay the surety-money, or a futile gift, or gambling deists, or debts due to liquor, or the balance of fines and duties.—(159)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Prātibhāvyam’ is that which is due from the surety,—i.e., the paying off of the debt due by the party for whom he has stood surety; it is this that is called ‘surety-money.’

What is denied here is the son’s liability; and the denial of liability implies the denial of its being his duty to pay; and in as much as a man never pays what it is not his duty to pay, the meaning of the text is that he should not pay. The sense of (the root ‘arh’ is to be thus explained in accordance with the sense of the infinitive verb with which it occurs.

“But how could there be any idea of the son’s liability to pay the surety-money, etc., when these were not debts incurred by his father?”

There is no force in this objection. When a man has undertaken to pay a certain sum it is as good as a ‘debt,’ since the result is the same. And when definitely known, it is a ‘debt,’ and as such may he considered as being due to be paid by the son. That is why this liability has got to be denied.

‘Futile gift’;—Gift promised in joke or under similar circumstances, made in some such form as ‘I request you to have this man paid such and such an amount by such and such a banker.’ If a messenger has been sent with this message, but the payment is not actually made, either on account of the banker’s absence, or of some other reason,—and the father dies in the meantime,—the son cannot be made to pay the gift.

Debts incurred in gambling are ‘gambling debts’; i.e., the amount that has been actually lost at play, or the money that can he proved to have been borrowed for the purpose of gambling, shall not he paid. In the case of a person who abandons his family and relations and lives and sleeps constantly at gambling dens, and is known to be always playing,—it can he easily ascertained that his debts are all due to gambling.

Debts due to drinking are said to be, ‘due to liquor’; ‘liquor’ standing for all sorts of intoxicating drugs. Hence the present denial partains to the debts of a man who is an inveterate drunkard.

‘Balance of fines and duties’;—if the father has paid a part of the fine or part of the duty,—but did not pay the entire amounts,—then the balance cannot be realised from the son. That is, he cannot be made to pay what the father did not pay.

Another Smṛti text lays it down in general terms—‘the son shall not be made to pay surety-money, trade-duties, debts due to gambling and drinking, and lines.’ ( Gautama, 12.41.)

Thus then, there is an option. If the crime for which the fine had been inflicted was a serious one, or the property inherited from the father is a large one, then the balance only of the fine, as of the duties, shall be remitted; but if they have not. been serious, then the whole shall be remitted.—(159)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Vṛthādānam’—‘Gifts promised in jest, or to clowns, bards and such persons’ (Medhātithi, Nārāyaṇa and Kulluka).—‘gifts promised not for religious purpose, but to singers and the like’ (Nandana).—

“Vaśiṣṭha (16.31) gives this verse as a well-known quotation. So Gautama (12.41).”—Hopkins.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 57), which adds the following notes:—The term ‘prātibhāvyam’ refers here to sureties of both kinds—surety for appearance, and surety for trust;—‘vṛthādānam’ is useless gifts;—‘ākṣikam,’ that due to gambling;—‘saurikam’, that due to wine-drinking;—the ‘gambling’ and ‘drinking’ meant here are of the improper kind;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (76b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.159-162)

Vaśiṣṭha (16.31).—‘They quote the following:—“A son need not pay money due by a surety, anything idly promised, money due for losses at play or for spirituous liquor, nor what remains unpaid of a fine or a toll.”’

Gautama (12.41).—‘Money due by a surety, a commercial debt, a marriage-fee, debts contracted for spirituous liquor or in gambling, and a fine shall not involve the sons.’

Viṣṇu (6.41).—‘Surety is ordained for appearance, for honesty, and for payment; the first two themselves (not their sons) shall pay the debt on failure of the engagement; but of the last, the sons also would be liable to pay.’

Yājñavalkya (2-47, 53, 54).—‘The son shall not pay his father’s debt involved in connection with wine, or love or gambling, or with balances of line and toll, or with idle gifts...... Surety is ordained for appearance, for honesty and for payment; on failure of the engagement, the first two shall pay the debt, and in the case of the last, his sons also shall be liable to pay. In a case where the surety for appearance or the surety for honesty has died, his son shall not he made to pay the debt; but in the case of one for payment, the sons should pay.’

Bṛhaspati (11.39-42).—(See under 158.)

Do. (11.51).—‘Sons shall not he made to pay a debt incurred by their father for spirituous liquor, for losses at play, for idle gifts, for promises made under the influence of love or wrath, or for suretyship; nor the balance of a fine or toll.’

Nārada (1.118-19).—(See under 158.)

Do. (1.10).—‘The son must pay the debt contracted by the father, excepting those debts which have been contracted from love or anger, or for spirituous liquor, games or bailments.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 656).—‘The son shall pay the sum due by reason of suretyship.’

Kātyāyana (Do., p. 656).—‘The debt contracted by the father in connection with suretyship must be paid by the son.’

Yājñavalkya (2.55, 56).—‘If there are several sureties, each shall pay to the creditor his own proportionate share of the debt. If each one of them has stood surety for the whole amount, the creditor may realise it from them in any way he chooses. In a case where the surety has been publicly compelled to pay the creditor, the debtor should pay to the surety double of the amount paid by him.’

Nārada (1. 120, 121).—‘When there is a plurality of sureties, they shall pay each proportionately, according to agreement. If they were hound severally, the payment shall be made by any of them, as the creditor pleases. Twice as much as the surety, harassed by the creditor, has given to the creditor, shall the debtor pay hack to the surety.’

Bṛhaspati (11.44).—‘When a surety, being harassed, pays a proved debt which he has vouched for, the debtor shall pay him twice as much, after the lapse of a month and a half.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 657).—(Same as Bṛhaspati.)