Verse 8.161

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

अदातरि पुनर्दाता विज्ञातप्रकृतावृणम् ।
पश्चात् प्रतिभुवि प्रेते परीप्सेत् केन हेतुना ॥ १६१ ॥

adātari punardātā vijñātaprakṛtāvṛṇam |
paścāt pratibhuvi prete parīpset kena hetunā || 161 ||

“By what means then would the creditor seek to obtain his dues, in the event of the death of the surety other than that for ‘payment,’ whose character is fully known?”—(161)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Having raised a question by means of the present verse, the Author answers it in the next verse: and the grounds for doubt are expressed by means of the two words ‘other than that for payment’ and ‘whose character is fully known’;—the three words with the locative ending—‘adātari,’ ‘pratibhuvi’ and ‘vijñātaprakṛtau’ being construed together.

‘By what means would the Creditor seek to obtain his dues?’—Should he seek to obtain it entirely by his own operations? Or should he also urge the surety’s son?

“Why should there be any such doubt, when it has been distinctly asserted that in the case of the death of sureties other than that for payment, the sous shall not be liable?—what connection then can the sons have with such dues?” The doubt arises because the surety is one ‘whose character is fully known’; which means that it is fully known that the man had received payment for becoming ‘surety ’; and this fact, being known, might give rise to the idea that his sons should be liable; since it is possible that the amount paid to the surety was for the purpose of paying off the debt in question.

The particle ‘punaḥ,’ ‘then,’ serves to distinguish the present from the preceding verse; the meaning being—‘if the liability falls upon the sons of the surety for payment only, then in the case of the death of one who is surety not for payment, from whom would the creditor, after his death, seek to obtain his dues?’

The rest has been already explained.

‘Parīpsā’ is seeking to obtain.—(101)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 43), which takes it as putting the question which is answered in the next verse. It adds the following notes:—‘Adā tari’, i.e., a surety other than the one for payment (i.e., the surety for appearance and the surety for trust),—being ‘vijñātoprakṛti’—i.e., being known to have stood surety after having received something in pledge from the debtor; and thus having its character fully known;—if such a surety dies ,—‘kena hetunā’—by what means—is the ‘dātā’—the man who advanced the loan, the creditor,—to receive back the debt? The work goes on to quote Halāyudha as explaining the term ‘vijñatoprakṛti’as ‘being known that he became the lagnaka (?) on receiving a pledge’, and regarding the verse as denying the creditor’s right to receive payment from the surety’s heirs on his death. But remarks that the net result of both explanations is the same.

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (74a), which has the following notes:—‘Adātari’, a surety other than Dānapratibhū,—‘dātā’, the creditor,—‘vijñātoprakṛti’, one whose solvency is well known.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.159-162)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.159.