Verse 9.233

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

तीरितं चानुशिष्टं च यत्र क्व चन यद् भवेत् ।
कृतं तद् धर्मतो विद्यान्न तद् भूयो निवर्तयेत् ॥ २३३ ॥

tīritaṃ cānuśiṣṭaṃ ca yatra kva cana yad bhavet |
kṛtaṃ tad dharmato vidyānna tad bhūyo nivartayet || 233 ||

Whatever has been finally settled and whatever punishment has been inflicted,—he shall accept as lawfully done, and shall not annul it—(233)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Whenever a transaction in the King’s Court has been ‘finally settled’,—the root ‘tīr’ (in ‘tirtam’) denoting completion,—i.e. definitely concluded,—not only verbally, but duly recorded;—as also ‘when a punishment has been inflicted’;—all this the king shall ‘accept as lawfully done, and shall not annul it’;—except in the case of the doubling of a fine,—which is thus recommended—‘the king shall revise the case with a view to inflicting a double fine’.—(233)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

“Medhātithi and Kullūka refer this prohibition to cases which have been properly decided in the King’s Courts, while Nārāyaṇa thinks that it applies to orders passed by former kings.—Nandana gives a different explanation of the words ‘tīritam’ and ‘anuśiṣṭam’...... according to which the former means ‘a cause or plaint declared to be just or unjust by the assessors,’ and the latter ‘a cause or plaint confirmed by witnesses’.”—(Buhler).

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva, (II, p. 231), which adds the following notes:—‘Anuśiṣṭam,’ confirmed by witnesses and other evidence, and hence ‘tīritam,’ decided by the assessors;—such suit the king shall not reopen.

It is quoted in Mitākṣarā (2.306), which explains the meaning to be that the king shall not have a suit reopened simply with a view to exact a heavier fine; he may however have a decided suit reopened when the losing party applies for reconsideration and stipulates that he would be prepared to pay a double fine in the event of the suit being again decided against him.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava, (Vyavahāra, p. 161), which adds that the verse refers to cases where the finding of the Court has been accepted by the parties concerned;—in Kṛtyakalpataru (64b), which has the following notes—‘Tīritam,’ decided and finished,—‘anuśiṣṭam,’ deposed to by the witnesses ,—‘yatra kvacana,’ in the village-assembly or other places;—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra 38b), which says 1,000 Paṇas are meant

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 9.233-234)

Yājñavalkya (2.305).—‘The man who, though defeated in the suit, does not accept defeat, and comes forward again to contest the suit, should be again non-suited and fined double the amount of the suit.’

Do. (2.304).—‘Those cases that have been wrongly decided, the King shall try again and punish each of the judges and the party in whose favour the case had been decided by them, with a fine double the amount of the suit.’

Nārada (Aparārka, p. 866).—‘When a legal transaction has been completed and a punishment has been inflicted,—if a party feels that it has been illegally done, he should have the case re-tried, undertaking to pay double the fine previously inflicted upon him.’

Bṛhaspati (6.5).—‘When a party does not feel satisfied with the decision arrived at by assemblies of kindreds or other agencies, the King should revise that decision and institute a fresh trial, if it should prove to have been unjust.’

Śukranīti (4.5.553).—‘When a Minister or the judge decides a case contrary to the law, the King shall revise it and fine the judge one thousand.’