Manusmriti with the Commentary of Medhatithi

by Ganganatha Jha | 1920 | 1,381,940 words | ISBN-10: 8120811550 | ISBN-13: 9788120811553

This is the English translation of the Manusmriti, which is a collection of Sanskrit verses dealing with ‘Dharma’, a collective name for human purpose, their duties and the law. Various topics will be dealt with, but this volume of the series includes 12 discourses (adhyaya). The commentary on this text by Medhatithi elaborately explains various t...

Verse 8.33 [Property lost and recovered]

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

आददीताथ षड्भागं प्रनष्टाधिगतान्नृपः ।
दशमं द्वादशं वाऽपि सतां धर्ममनुस्मरन् ॥ ३३ ॥

ādadītātha ṣaḍbhāgaṃ pranaṣṭādhigatānnṛpaḥ |
daśamaṃ dvādaśaṃ vā'pi satāṃ dharmamanusmaran || 33 ||

Property that has been lost and found should remain in the charge of specially deputed (officials); and the thieves that he may detect in connection with this, the king shall cause to be killed by an elephant.—(33)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Pranaṣṭādhigatan’— that which has been lost and then found, i.e., at first lost and subsequently found.

Should remain in charge of officials specially deputed’—whose chief duty is to take care of the property.

While it is thus kept, if thieves should happen to steal it,—then these thieves the King shall cause to be killed by an elephant.

The specification of the ‘elephant’ can only he with a view to some invisible (transcendental) result.—(33)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

Which particular part of the property is to be taken by the king in any particular case shall depend upon the length of time for which it has been kept by the king (Medhātithi and Rāghavānanda),—or on the trouble involved in keeping it (Medhātithi and Govindarāja),—or on the character of the owner (Kullūka and Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Mitākṣarā (on 2.33), which concludes that dining the first year, the king should hand over to the owner the entire property, keeping nothing for the state,—during the second year he should keep for the state the twelfth part of it,—during the third year, its tenth part,—and during the fourth year and onwards, the sixth part; and in every case the fourth part of the royal share should be given to the man who found the property.—This is again quoted in the same work under 2.173, where also the same explanation is accepted.

It is quoted in Aparārka (p. 778), which declares that whether the king shall take the larger or smaller share shall depend upon the trouble involved in the keeping of the property.

It is quoted in Vyavahāramayūkha (p. 87), which accepts the explanation given in the Mitākṣarā, and adds that the rule that the king should take the whole property after the lapse of three years is meant for those cases where the owner of the property is not known; but in cases where it is known that such and such an article has been forgotten here by this or that man,—the property has to be handed over to him, even though he may turn up after the lapse of three years.

It is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 347), which adds the following notes;—‘Praṇaṣṭādhigatāt’ means ‘out of the property that was lost, discovered and kept in custody;’—the alternatives regarding the portion to be taken by the king are based upon the amount of trouble involved in the keeping of the property;—this rule is meant for the case of property other than the ‘single-hoofed’ and the rest mentioned in Yājñavalkya (2.174).

It is quoted in Madanapārijāta (p. 226);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Rājanīti, p. 265), which adds the following notes:—‘Praṇaṣṭa’ means ‘fallen away from the possession of the owner—if some such property has been found by the customs-officer or other officers guarding the place, and brought over to the king,—then out of that, if the owner should turn up to claim it during the first year, the king should hand over to him the whole of it,—if during the second year, he should keep for the state the twelfth part of it,—during the third year, the tenth part, and during the fourth year and onwards, the sixth part, adding that the increased share is justified by the increased trouble involved in keeping the property for a longer period.

It is quoted in Nṛsiṃhaprasāda (Vyavahāra, p. 27b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.33-34)

Arthaśāstra (p. 96).—‘In the case of the loss of property in the shape of a biped, the owner shall pay five Paṇas as the fee; in that of one-hoofed animals, 4 Paṇas; in the case of cows and buffaloes, 2 Paṇas; in that of small cattle, one fourth of a Paṇa; in the case of gems and minor metals, five per cent, of the value.’

Gautama (10.36-38).—(See under 30.)

Yājñavalkya (2.174).—‘The owner should give to the Under 4 Paṇas in the case of a one-hoofed animal, 5 in the ease of man, two in the ease of buffaloes, camels and cows, and a fourth Paṇa in the case of sheep or goat.’

Nārada (Vivādaratnākara).—‘If a man recovers his own property that had been lost, he shall report it to the King; and he shall take it only after he has proved his honesty.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: