Verse 8.139

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

ऋणे देये प्रतिज्ञाते पञ्चकं शतमर्हति ।
अपह्नवे तद् द्विगुणं तन् मनोरनुशासनम् ॥ १३९ ॥

ṛṇe deye pratijñāte pañcakaṃ śatamarhati |
apahnave tad dviguṇaṃ tan manoranuśāsanam || 139 ||

On the debt being admitted to be due, the debtor deserves (a fine of) five per cent.; and in the case of denial, twice as much; such is the ordinance of manu.—(139)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

When the debtor, on being summoned to the King’s Court, admits the debt as legally due by him, saying—‘I do really owe this to him,’—then ‘i.e., deserves five per cent.’ ‘as fine’;—this has to be added. By this rule, the man is to be fined the twentieth part of the amount of debt claimed. The man deserves this fine on account of his having transgressed the law by not satisfying the creditor’s claims outside the Court and thereby forcing him to come up to the king.

When the man commits a further transgression by denying the claim, saying—‘I do not owe anything to this person,’—then, on the claim being proved, the man is to be fined ‘twice as much’; i.e., double of five per cent.; i.e., ten per cent.

‘Such is the ordinance of Manu’—Prajāpati; i.e., the Rule or Law propounded by him from the very beginning of creation.

Others have explained the term ‘as much’ as referring to the total amount of the claim, i.e., double the sum that is due to the debtor; as it is only thus that the syntactical connection with the term ‘debt’ is maintained; otherwise there is a syntactical split; and as no different subject has been mentioned, if it referred to the same subject, then the result would be an option.

This however is not right; for the double of the amount of debt would he too much. Even though the subject is not definitely mentioned, yet on account of juxtaposition, it is only right that it should be taken as referring to ‘five per cent.’—(139)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Taddviguṇam’—‘Double of 5 p. c., i.e., 10 p. c.’ This is the explanation, accepted by all the commentators. But Medhātithi mentions ‘others’ as explaining the meaning to be ‘double of the amount of the debt’ This latter would be more in keeping with what has gone before in verse 59.

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 77), which adds the following notes:—The meaning is as follows: If the debt is at first denied, and subsequently admitted, then the debtor should be fined 5 per cent on the amount of debt; but if he does not admit it even subsequently—and yet the debt becomes proved by the evidence adduced,—then the man shall be fined the ‘double of that,’ i.e., 10 per cent. It proceeds to add a note which serves to explain the inconsistency of this rule with what has gone in verse 59:—the diversity is due to considerations of the nature of the debtor’s motives.

It is quoted in Vivādacintāmaṇi (p. 34), which adds the explanation that ‘when a debt is denied at first and subsequently admitted, the debtor is to he fined 5 per cent, and if the man continues to deny the debt which is subsequently proved, the fine is to be 10 per cent; and adds that this refers to cases where the debtor is poor’;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru (81a), which has the following explanation:—(a) If the man has denied the debt but admits it when sued in Court, then he is to be fined 5 p. c., (b) if he continues to deny it in the Court, but the debt is subsequently proved, then the fine is 10 per cent;—this refers to cases where the former denial has been based upon some misapprehension on the part of the debtor; the case where the denial is through perversity and intentional, has been dealt with under 59.

It is quoted in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 111a), which explains the meaning to be ‘when the man having denied the debt at first, admits it when sued and brought before the Court, he should pay a fine of 5 p. c. and if he continues to deny it, but is subsequently forced by evidence to admit, then 10 p. c.’

 

Comparative notes by various authors

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

Yājñavalkya (2.44).—‘Out of the sum proved against him, the King shall make the debtor pay ten per cent, (as fine) and the creditor, on having realised his dues, shall pay five per cent,’

Nārada (1.132-134).—‘If a wealthy debtor, from malice) refuses to pay his debt, the King shall compel him to pay it by forcible means, and shall take five in the hundred for himself. If the debtor acknowledges the debt with his own mouth, the King shall take from him ten per cent, of the debt as fine; and twice as much if he has been convicted. If the debtor, owing to a calamity, has not means sufficient to discharge the whole debt, the claim of the creditor shall be entered in a legal document, specifying the caste of the debtor and of the creditor, their names, and the names of their neighbours.’

Bṛhaspati (11.60-02).—‘When the time fixed for pay ment has elapsed, and the accruing of interest has ceased, the creditor may either recover his loan or cause a new bond to bo written in the form of compound interest. This rule concerns an acknowledged debt; but a debtor denying his liability shall be compelled to pay, on the debt being proved in a court, by a document or by witnesses.’

Yama (Vivādaratnākara, p. 78).—‘If a wealthy debtor refuses to repay the debt, through ill-will, he should be compelled by the King to pay, after having realised from him double the amount of the claim.’