Verse 8.197 [Fraudulent Sale]

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

विक्रीणीते परस्य स्वं योऽस्वामी स्वाम्यसंमतः ।
न तं नयेत साक्ष्यं तु स्तेनमस्तेनमानिनम् ॥ १९७ ॥

vikrīṇīte parasya svaṃ yo'svāmī svāmyasaṃmataḥ |
na taṃ nayeta sākṣyaṃ tu stenamastenamāninam || 197 ||

If a man sells another man’s property, without being its owner, and without the owner’s consent, the judge shall not admit him as a witness,—he being a thief; though he may not be regarded as a thief.—(197)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The text now proceeds to deal with the head of dispute called ‘Sale without Ownership.’

The ‘property’—articles—that belongs to another person,—if a person, who is not the owner—i.e., who is not the son or any such relative of the owner,—and who has not obtained the consent of the owner,—‘sells,’—him the judge shall regard as a ‘thief’; though the person who buys it from him may not regard him as a thief.

Him the judge ‘shall not admit as a witness,’— shall not call him as a witness; because he is just like a thief; and being a thief, he is not fit for being called as a witness.

The present exclusion is meant to be, not only from being called as a witness, but from all such acts as are to be done by a gentleman.

When a property is sold by one who is not its owner, without the consent of the real owner, it does not become the property of the buyer;—this fact being already known, the forbidding of such a transaction by means of asserting that such a person is not fit for being called as a witness, is meant to be only a diversified way of saying things—(197)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 103), which explains the phrase ‘na tam nayet sākṣyam’ as ‘should place no confidence in him’;—in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, 26b);—in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 41), which explains ‘sākṣyam’ as ‘trustworthy evidence’;—in Kṛtyakalpataru (85b), which explains ‘na tam nayet sākṣyam’ as ‘no trust is to be placed in him’—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 115b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (7.1).—‘When a property kept as deposit, or the property of a stranger lost by him and found by another, or a stolen article,—is sold in secret, it has to he considered as sale without ownership.’

Bṛhaspati (13.2).—‘An open deposit, a bailment for delivery, a sealed deposit, stolen property, a pledge, or what has been borrowed for use;—when any one of these articles has been sold in secret by a man, he is declared to be one selling without ownership.’

Vyāsa (Vivādaratnākara, p. 100).—‘An article borrowed for use, deposit sealed or open, or anything stolen from another,—if any of these is sold by a man, it is a case of sale without ownership.’