Verse 8.166

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

ग्रहीता यदि नष्टः स्यात् कुटुम्बार्थे कृतो व्ययः ।
दातव्यं बान्धवैस्तत् स्यात् प्रविभक्तैरपि स्वतः ॥ १६६ ॥

grahītā yadi naṣṭaḥ syāt kuṭumbārthe kṛto vyayaḥ |
dātavyaṃ bāndhavaistat syāt pravibhaktairapi svataḥ || 166 ||

When the borrower is lost, and the expenditure was incurred by the family, the debt is to be paid by the relatives out of their own property, even though these may have been separated.—(166)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared that the debt is to be repaid by the man by whom it was contracted, and in his absence by his son or grandson, and in the absence of those hitter, by any one who inherits his property; and from this it would seem that no one else was liable in any circumstances. It is in view of this that the author adds the present verse.

If the man who contracted the debt is ‘lost’—i.e., dead or gone abroad, ‘and the expenditure was incurred by the family,’—then that debt ‘is to be paid by bis relatives’; i.e., by his brother or nephew or uncle, etc.,—‘even though these may have been separated’—i.e., had divided their property;—‘svataḥ,’ i.e., out of their own property.

The debt that has been contracted by one among several brothers 1ms to be repaid out of the common household, specially if there has been no division among them. To this end we have the declaration -¹ The debt that has been contracted by an unseparated uncle or brother, or by the mother, for the sake of the family, all this is to be paid out of the common property, so that from among the undivided members of a family, if any one has contracted a debt for the sake of the family, it should be paid by all other members,—brother, uncle, nephew or cousin; but not so, if the debt contracted was not for the use of the family.’ The term ‘unseparated’ implies that debt for the use of the whole family is generally contracted only by such persons; for people who have become separated are never found to be contracting debts for the maintenance of families other than their own.

‘Even though these may hare been separated’;—the term ‘even’ implies that it has to be paid of course by those who are not separated. If it so happens that from among separated brothers, one goes abroad, without making any provision for his family, and another, being of a magnanimous temperament, takes upon himself the burden of maintaining his family during his absence—then the absentee should, on his return, repay any debts that his separated brother or uncle may have contracted on behalf of his family.—(166)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 53), which adds the term ‘svataḥ’, which means ‘out of their own property’, and implies that in a case where even among divided co-sharers, if one has contracted a debt for the purpose of the maintenance of all co-sharers, and he, for some reason or other, such as death and so forth, is unable to repay it—then the debt should be paid by all the other co-sharers.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 647);—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 178), which explains ‘svātaḥ’ as ‘from his own property;’—in Kṛtyakalpataru (76a);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 110a), which says that the explanation given by the ‘Vṛttikāra’ is that ‘when a man who borrowed the money goes away or dies, and the money was spent by him for his family, then the debt is to be repaid even by such of his collaterals as may have been living separately from him’,—what to say, regarding those who might have been living with him. It demurs to this explanation and quotes the explanation of the ‘Mahābhāṣya’ as that separated collaterals, like the uncle and so forth, should repay the debt out of their own property.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.166-167)

Yājñavalkya (2.45, 46).—‘Any debt that may have been contracted for the benefit of the family, on the death or during the absence of the master of the house, by such members as have not become divided, shall be paid by all those who inherit the property. But the woman shall not pay the debt contracted by her husband or son; nor the father, the debt contracted by the son,—except when the debt is one that has been contracted for the benefit of the family.’

Nārada (1, 2, 3, 10-18).—‘The father being dead, it is incumbent on the sons to pay his debt, each according to his share, if they are divided; if they are not divided, the debt must be discharged by that son who becomes the manager of the family-estate. That debt which has been contracted by an undivided paternal uncle, brother, or mother, for the benefit of the household, must be discharged wholly by the heirs. A father may not pay the debt of his son; but the son must pay the debt contracted by his father; excepting those that may have been contracted from love or anger, or for spirituous liquor, games or bailments. Such debts of a son as have been contracted by him by his father's orders, or for the maintenance of the family, or in a precarious situation,—must be paid by the father. What has been spent for the household by a pupil, apprentice, slave, woman, menial, or agent, must he paid by the head of the household. When the debtor is dead, and the expense has been incurred for the benefit of the family, the debt must he paid by his relations,—even though they he separated from him in interests. The father, uncle, or eldest brother, having gone abroad, the son (or nephew or younger brother) is not bound to pay his debt before the lapse of twenty years. Every single coparcener is liable for debts contracted by another coparcener, if they were contracted while the coparceners wore all alive and undivided. But after their death, the son of one is not hound to pay the debt of another. The wife need not pay the debt contracted by her husband, nor one contracted by her son, except if it had been promised by her, or contracted in common with her husband. A sonless widow, and one enjoined by her dying husband (to pay his debt), must pay it. Or it may be paid by one who inherits the estate—liability for debts going with the right of succession. A debt contracted by the wife shall never hind the husband, unless it had been contracted at a time when the husband was in distress. Household expenses are indispensably necessary.’

Bṛhaspati (11. 49-52). The father’s debt, on being proved, must he paid by the sons as if it were their own; the grand-father’s debts must be paid by his son’s sons, without interest; but the son of the grandson need not pay it. When a debt has been incurred for the benefit of the household, by an uncle, brother, son, wife, slave, pupil or dependant, it must be paid by the head of the family. Sons shall not be made to pay a debt incurred by their father for wine, for losses at play, for idle gifts, for promises made under the influence of love or hate, or for suretyship; nor the balance of a lino or toll. The liability for debts devolves on the successor to the estate, when the son is involved in calamity.’

Viṣṇu (6.27-39).—‘If he who contracted the debt should die, or become a renunciate, or remain abroad for twenty years,—that debt shall be discharged by his sons or grandsons;—but not by remoter descendants against their will. He who takes the assets of a man, leaving or not leaving male issue, must pay the sum due by him; and so mush he who has the care of the widow left by one who had no assets. A woman shall not be compelled to pay the debt of her husband or son; nor the husband or the son, the debt of his wife or mother; nor the father, that of his son. A debt contracted by parceners shall be paid by any one of them that may be alive; and so shall the debt of the father be paid by any one of the brothers, before partition; but after partition, they shall pay severally, according to their shares of the inheritance. A debt contracted by the wife of a herdsman, wine-distiller, public-dancer, washer or hunter shall be discharged by the husband.... The house-holder must pay that debt which may have been contracted by any person, for the behoof of the family.’

Katyāyana (Vivādaratnakara, pp. 50 and 54).—‘If the father is an invalid, even though alive,—or if he has been away from the country for twenty years,—the debts contracted by him should be paid by his sons. The debt contracted by the family, either during illness, or during a calamity, or in connection with the daughter’s marriage, or a Śrāddha, should be paid by the head of the family.’