Verse 8.180

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

यो यथा निक्षिपेद्द् हस्ते यमर्थं यस्य मानवः ।
स तथैव ग्रहीतव्यो यथा दायस्तथा ग्रहः ॥ १८० ॥

yo yathā nikṣipedd haste yamarthaṃ yasya mānavaḥ |
sa tathaiva grahītavyo yathā dāyastathā grahaḥ || 180 ||

In the form in which one shall deposit a thing in the hands of another person, in that same form shall that thing be received back; as the delivery so the recovery.—(180)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Yathā,’—in the form; i.e., sealed or unsealed, with witnesses or without witnesses and so forth.

‘In that same form’ should the thing be received back; the thing should be recovered in the same form in which it had been delivered.

In a case where it is generally known that the party concerned always keeps deposits properly sealed,—if a dispute arises, and the deposit is found to be unsealed, if the trustee were to say ‘this man never seals his deposits, he forces them upon me and goes off,’ he would be suspected of dishonesty and would lose his case; there being no room for any other evidence so far;—but when, on the seal being found broken, the question arises as to what part of the property has been extracted, the king should call other kinds of evidence; the guilty man however is to be punished in the first place, with the penalty prescribed for dishonest dealing in general;—and secondly, another penalty in connection with the ‘deposit’ has to be imposed after the exact amount extracted has been determined.

“in the case of a dishonest dealing, the man deserves to be mulcted of the entire amount involved.”

True; but this is so only in cases where the entire guilt is clearly indicated by proofs. For instance, a certain village has been robbed, Devadatta is accused of having colluded with other thieves and robbed the village on that day,—thereupon he pleads—‘on that day I did not go to that village,’—witnesses declare that he had been seen in the village on that day, but it had not been seen that he had actually committed the robbery,—from this the deduction is that the man having denied the robbery as well as his presence in the village, since his presence had been proved, the denial of the robbery also was not true; so that when there was other evidence clearly proving the man’s presence in the village, it was safe to infer that he had committed the robbery also.

In the present case however, it may he that the seal was broken through carelessness (and not necessarily intentionally), (so that the penalty need not always be severe).

‘As the delivery so the recovery,’—i.e., what was delivered ‘sealed’ should be received back also ‘sealed.’

Fraudulent denial may be made by a man who might think that there would be no occasion for his being hauled up. The presence of such fraudulent intention may be inferred; but the exact amount involved cannot be determined entirely on the assertion of the depositor, except through other kinds of evidence. So in such cases the right course would be to arrive at a decision with the help of ordeals. And (as for the actual award), it is only where no certainty is possible in regard to the entire claim that a partial decree is awarded.—(180)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 86), which explains ‘dāyaḥ’ as depositing and ‘grahaḥ’ as receiving;—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 205), which explains ‘dāyaḥ’ as giving, depositing,—and ‘grahaḥ’ as receiving;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 113b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Yājñavalkaya (2.65, 67).—‘If something contained in a basket is made over in deposit to another person, without the contents being declared, it is called a Scaled Deposit; it shall be restored to the owner in exactly the same form in which it had ben deposited. This same rule applies to ordinary deposits also.’

Nārada (2.3).—‘In whatever form may a man have delivered any of his effects to another, in the same form shall that article be restored to the owner; as the delivery so the recovery.’

Nārada (2.5).—‘If one article concealed in another is deposited in another man’s house, without stating what it is, it is then a Sealed Deposit.’

Nārada (2.6).—‘Deposits must he restored in precisely the same condition.’

Bṛhaspati (12.3).—‘When a chattel enclosed in a cover and marked with a seal is deposited, without describing its nature and quantity, and without showing it, it is termed a Sealed Deposit.’

Bṛhaspati (12.9).—‘A deposit must be returned to the very man who hailed it, in the very manner in which it was hailed.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 662).—‘Purchase-money, what is deposited by one going on a long journey, a pledge, something handed over for being delivered to a third party, what is given to another for the making of something else, what is paid in connection with loan-transactions, all this is called Deposit.’