Verse 8.162

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

निरादिष्टधनश्चेत् तु प्रतिभूः स्यादलन्धनः ।
स्वधनादेव तद् दद्यान्निरादिष्ट इति स्थितिः ॥ १६२ ॥

nirādiṣṭadhanaścet tu pratibhūḥ syādalandhanaḥ |
svadhanādeva tad dadyānnirādiṣṭa iti sthitiḥ || 162 ||

If the surety were one to whom money had been made over and who had enough money,—then he to whom it had been made over shall pay it out ok his own property; such is the settled rule.—(162)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

If the surety is one who is ‘Nirādiṣṭadhanaḥ,’ a person to whom money has been handed over by the debtor, with the instruction—‘In the event of my being unable to pay, you will please clear oil the debt with this,’—and hence ‘alandhanaḥ,’ having ‘enough money’;—i.e., who had made over to him money sufficient to pay off the whole amount due to the creditor-then he should be made to pay. But if the amount made ever to him was small, while the amount of the debt is large, then he should not be made to pay.

This verse supplies the answer to the question in the preceding verse.

Though the money had been made over to the surety, yet it is the son who is to be made to pay out as of his own property (the surety having died). Hence the words should be construed to mean ‘the son of the surety to whom money had been made over’; as it is the son that forms the subject-matter of the context; as for the surety himself, his liability would follow from the mere fact of his being a ‘surety.’

‘Such is the settled rule,’—ordinance deduced from the scriptures.

What is intended having been already expressed by the term ‘alandhanaḥ,’ ‘who had enough money,’— the addition of the term ‘nirādiṣṭadhanaḥ,’ ‘to whom money had been made over,’ is due to the fact of the treatise being a metrical one (which admits of superfluous words and expressions).—(162)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Alandhanaḥ’—Qualifies the surety (Medhātithi, Govindarāja and Nārāyaṇa);—it qualifies the surety’s heir (Rāghavānanda);—Nandana reads ‘alakṣitaḥ’ and explains it as ‘if the surety who received the money is not found.’

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 48), as providing the answer to the question put in the preceding verse. It adds the following explanation:—If the surety, to whom money had been handed over (nirādiṣṭa) by the debtor, is ‘alandhanaḥ’,—i.e., he has really got the money,—then, on his death, the ‘nirādiṣṭaḥ’—i.e., the son of the surety to whom money had been handed over—should pay the debt out of his own property. The term ‘nirādiṣṭaḥ’ is applied figuratively to the son.

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (74a), which has the following notes:—‘Nirādiṣṭadhana’, is the surety to whom enough money had been handed over by the creditor, to cover the amount of surety involved,—‘alandhanaḥ’, possessed of sufficient property,—the second ‘nirādiṣṭa’ stands for the son of the person who had stood surety and has since died; the meaning being that the son should make good the debt for which his father had stood surety.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.159-162)

See Comparative notes for Verse 8.159.