Verse 8.51

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

अर्थेऽपव्ययमानं तु करणेन विभावितम् ।
दापयेद् धनिकस्यार्थं दण्डलेशं च शक्तितः ॥ ५१ ॥

arthe'pavyayamānaṃ tu karaṇena vibhāvitam |
dāpayed dhanikasyārthaṃ daṇḍaleśaṃ ca śaktitaḥ || 51 ||

The man who denies a debt shall be made to pay the creditor’s due, proved by evidence, as also a small fine, according to his means.—(51)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Even in the presence of convincing proof, if the debtor does not himself admit the debt, then recourse should not be had to ‘trick’ and the other means,—the King should be informed of it; and when summoned by the King, if the man ‘denies the debt,’—saying ‘I do not owe him anything’—then, on its being ‘proved by evidence’—in the shape of written document, oral witnesses and possession,—and the man being made to confess that he does owe the debt,—he shall make the debtor repay the ‘creditor’s due,’—‘as also a small fine,’ a small penalty, which shall, later on, he fixed at the tenth part of the claim.

If the man he unable to pay the whole fine, he may be made to pay a fine even less than the tenth part. Or, the favour of the fine being inflicted according to the man’s means,—even less than the tenth part—may be taken as pertaining to the case of the man who denies the debt (not through perversity, but) through having forgotten all about it, through carelessness.

‘Evidence,’ proof, is of three kinds; thus enumerated elsewhere—‘If one did not have a written deed executed, nor is there a witness, nor previous claiming, there the only means is the supernatural one (ordeal).’—(51)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 76), which adds the following notes:—‘Āpavyayamānam’, ‘denying’,—‘Karaṇena,’ ‘by evidence, documentary and otherwise’,—‘vibhāvitam’, ‘faced, convinced’;—such a debtor the king shall compel to pay the amount to the creditor;—and by reason of the man having denied what was true, the king shall exact from him a slight fine also.

It is quoted in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 153), which adds that this rule is meant for the case where the debtor is a well behaved Brāhmaṇa;—in Vyavahāratattva (p. 61);—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (p. 80b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (6, 19-20).—‘If the debtor, forced to discharge the debt, complains to the King, he shall be fined in an equal sum. If a creditor sues before the King and fully proves his demand, the debtor shall pay to the King, as fine, the tenth part of the sum proved.’

Bṛhaspati (11.62).—‘A debtor denying his liability shall be compelled to pay, on the debt being proved, in court, by a document or by witnesses.’