Verse 8.47 [Non-payment of debt]

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

अधमर्णार्थसिद्ध्यर्थमुत्तमर्णेन चोदितः ।
दापयेद् धनिकस्यार्थमधमर्णाद् विभावितम् ॥ ४७ ॥

adhamarṇārthasiddhyarthamuttamarṇena coditaḥ |
dāpayed dhanikasyārthamadhamarṇād vibhāvitam || 47 ||

On being prayed by the creditor for the recovery of money from the debtor, he shall make the debtor pay to the creditor the money proved to be due.—(47)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

The rules that are applicable to all suits in common having been described, the author now proceeds to lay down those relating specifically to each of the several kinds of suits.

The man who receives money from another person on the understanding that at some other time he would re-pay it with interest is called the ‘debtor’; and he who lends the money on the understanding that he is doing it with a view to being repaid with interest is called the ‘creditor.’ These two are relative terms.

‘Money from the debtor’;—from the context it is clear that this phrase stands for what is due to the creditor; and the ‘recovery’ of this means its repayment to the creditor. The second ‘artha’ stands for purpose, ‘for.’ Thus the meaning of the whole is that—‘when the king is prayed—petitioned to—by the creditor to the effect that he may be pleased to make the debtor repay what he had borrowed from him,—then the King shall make the debtor pay the money to the creditor.’

‘Dhanika’ is one who has money; and it is the creditor who is called, in ordinary parlance, ‘Dhanika.’ In view of the verb ‘make to pay.’—the right case-ending to use would have been the Dative, yeṭ iṭ has not been used, because the man has not yet become the actual recipient. We have similar usage in such expressions as ‘ghnataḥ pṛṣṭham dadati’ (the man offers his back to the striker), ‘rajakasya rastram dadāli’ (makes over the clothes to the washerman); in neither of these cases have we the Dative ending, because there is no transference of ownership; and in the absence of such transference, the act of giving is not completed.

The question arising as to whether the King is to make the debtor pay simply because the creditor says it is his due, the answer is no,—he shall make him pay only what is proved to be due;—i.e., only when the King has assured himself, by indubitable proof, that, the man does really owe the amount; or ‘vibhāvitam’ may be taken to mean ‘admitted’; since the method to be employed regarding disputed debts is going to be laid down below, under verse 52.

“But how can ‘vibhāvita’ mean admitted?”

There is no force in this objection; it is quite possible that he may have forgotten about the debt, but on being shown his own writing (on the deed), he comes to admit it himself; so that though he did not admit it before, he comes to admit it afterwards; or it. may he that even though knowing all along that he did borrow the money, he might dissemble in the beginning (before the producing of the document).—(47)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 76), which adds the following explanation;—‘when the debtor has received something,—and the creditor approaches the king for the recovery of that, then the king should have the creditor’s dues paid to him by the debtor;—if it is adhamarṇavibhāvitam, that is, if it is proved by the creditor that the amount claimed is really due from the debtor’;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (80b).

The clear meaning, specially in view of verse 51, appears to be ‘if the debt is admitted by the debtor.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (6.20-22).—‘If a creditor sues before the King and fully proves bis demand, the debtor shall pay as fine to the King a tenth part of the sum proved. The creditor, having received the sum due, shall pay a twentieth part of it. If the whole demand has been contested by the debtor, and even a part of it only has been proved against him, he must pay the whole.’

Matsyapurāṇa (Rājadharma, 227.4),—‘The man who, having received a loan, does not repay it in due course, should be compelled to repay it, and should also he fined the first amercement.’