Verse 8.30 [Unclaimed Property]

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

प्रणष्टस्वामिकं रिक्थं राजा त्र्यब्दं निधापयेत् ।
अर्वाक् त्र्यब्दाद्द् हरेत् स्वामी परेण नृपतिर्हरेत् ॥ ३० ॥

praṇaṣṭasvāmikaṃ rikthaṃ rājā tryabdaṃ nidhāpayet |
arvāk tryabdādd haret svāmī pareṇa nṛpatirharet || 30 ||

Property, the owner whereof has disappeared, the King shall keep for three years; up to three years the owner may receive it; but after that the King (shall take it).—(30)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When some one has lost something,—it having dropped on the ground while he was going along the road, or in the forest,—and the conservator of the forests, or some other official of the King, finds it and brings it to the King,—the King shall arrange for its safe keeping and have it kept exposed to view at the royal gate or on the public road, and made it known by heat of drum if any one has lost anything; or he shall have it kept in charge of keepers on the spot where it was found. For three years he shall thus keep it.

Then, before the lapse of three years, if some one reports with proofs that the property belongs to him, then it should he made over to him, after deducting the sixth part of it, which is said (in verse MM) to be the King’s share; and after the lapse of three years the King shall take the property into his own treasury.

That ‘riktha,’ ‘property,’ is said to be ‘praṇaṣṭasvāmika,’ of which the owner has ‘disappeared’—i.e., cannot he traced.

‘Tryabdam’ denotes the aggregate of three years; the feminine affix being absent, just as it is in the compound ‘trivarṣam.’ The term ‘abda’ is synonymous with ‘year.’

‘Shall keep’—shall have it deposited.

‘Up to three years,’—i.e., before the period of three years is over,—‘the owner may receive it,’—assert, his ownership.

The term ‘arvāk,’ ‘up to’ denotes limit, and indicates priority of time or place.

Others have explained the sentence ‘the king shall lake it’ to convey the permission to him to enjoy the property. What these people mean is that even after the lapse of throe years, it would, not be right for the King to ‘take’ or possess what belongs to another person; and hence what is meant is that after the lapse of three years, if the lightful owner does not turn up, the King shall enjoy the usufruct of the property.

But how will these people explain the verse ‘Whatever an owner sees enjoyed by others during ten years, and though present, says nothing, that he shall not recover’ (8.117)? Further, if it he asserted that the ‘taking away’ of another man’s property cannot be right,—then the using also of such property cannot be right. Specially as another man’s property in the shape of clothing and the like, becomes unfit by use. For these reasons it is only right that the mention of ‘taking away’ should he taken to mean actual possession; specially as enjoyment, which is the fruit of possession, would be present (according to the other view also). Then again, what sort of ‘enjoyment of usufruct’ would there ho in the case of such property as the elephant, the house and the like?

Thus then, there is no reason for abandoning the direct literal meaning of the words; specially as the root ‘hṛ,’ ‘to take away,’ has often been found to be used in the sense of possession, as in such phrase ‘riktham haret,’ ‘shall take possession of the property.’ Hence what the sentence means is that after three years the King shall ‘take’—i.e., take possession of—the property.—(30)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This rule is meant for only such property as does not belong to a Brāhmaṇa—says Nandana.

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 778), which notes that the rule (relating to the keeping of the property for three years) pertains to the case of property belonging to Brāhmaṇas with exceptional qualifications;—in Mitākṣarā on 2.38, which notes that the meaning is that for three years, the property must be kept in safe custody; if the owner turns up before the lapse of one year, the entire property should be handed over to him; but if he turns up after one year then a portion of the property is to be taken by the king as fee for keeping it; the proportion being specified below in verse 33; it adds that the last clause, permits the king to spend the property after three years, only in the case of the owner not turning up at all.—It is quoted again under 1.173, where it is noted that the period of three years is meant for the case of the owner being a Brāhmaṇa ‘endowed with learning and character.’

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 226), which notes that this only permits the king to make use of the property (not to make it his own). In view of what the Mitākṣarā and Aparārka have said, it is interesting to note that Madnapārijāta reads ‘abdam’ and ‘abdāt’, which clearly puts down the period as one year only.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 87), which also notes that the rules refer to the property of a Brāhmaṇa learned in the Veda.

This is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 266), which adds the following notes:—Reading this text along with Yājñavalkya (2-33), we take the rule to be that, if the owner turns up before the lapse of one year, the entire property should be made over to him, but if after that, the king should take from it his own share;—for three years he should keep the property in the same condition in which it was found; and after that he is permitted to spend out of it;—and if the owner turns up after three years, then the king should take out of it his own share, which should be equal to that of the owner,—giving the fourth part of the royal share to the man who found the property.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Āhnika, p. 36a and Vyavahāra, p. 27b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Gautama (10.36-38).—‘Those who find lost, property, the owner of which is not known, shall report it to the King. The King shall cause it to be proclaimed and hold it in his custody for a year. After that one-fourth of the value of the property goes to the finder and the remainder to the King.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.19-20).—‘Property entirely given up goes to the King. If it be otherwise, the King with his ministers and the citizens shall administer it.’

Yājñavalkya (2.33).—‘The property lost and found, the King shall make over to him to whom it belongs; if he fails to substantiate with proofs his claim to it, he shall he punished with fine equal to the value of the property.’

Do. (2.172).—‘If a man obtains from another person the property that had been stolen or lost,—without reporting it to the King—he should he fined 96 Paṇas.’

Yājñavalkya (2.173).—‘When a stolen or lost property is brought to the King by the customs-officers or by village-officers, the owner thereof shall get it if he turns up before one year; after that the King shall take it himself.’

Agnipurāṇa (Rājadharma, 222.16-17).—(Same as Manu.)

Arthaśāstra (p. 96).—‘If the owner of the lost property proves his ownership, he obtains what had been lost and recovered. If he fails to prove his ownership, he is fined the fifth part of the value of the article: and the article becomes the lawful property of the King; if the owner takes forcible possession of the article lost and found, he is to he fined the first amercement. Property lost and found should remain deposited in the Customs Office; and after three fortnights, it is to he handed over to the rightful owner or surrendered to the royal treasury.’