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...

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

यत् किं चिद् दशवर्षाणि संनिधौ प्रेक्षते धनी ।
भुज्यमानं परैस्तूष्णीं न स तत्लब्धुमर्हति ॥ १४७ ॥

yat kiṃ cid daśavarṣāṇi saṃnidhau prekṣate dhanī |
bhujyamānaṃ paraistūṣṇīṃ na sa tatlabdhumarhati || 147 ||

Whatever thing the owner meekly sees being used by others in his presence, for ten years,—that thing he does not deserve to recover.—(147)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Whatever thing being used,’ etc.—such is the construction, ‘being used’ being brought back to the beginning.

Owner;’—though this general term has been used, yet the person meant is the owner of the thing whose use is being ignored.

Whatever thing’—includes all kinds of property, slaves, slave-girls, utensils large and small, and so forth; though all this is not usually spoken of as ‘dhana,’ ‘property,’ ‘wealth,’—which name is applied to gold, silver and other valuable articles.

The moaning of the sentence thus is this:—“When the owner of a property sees, for ten years, a certain property of his being used by another person,—and says nothing,—i.e., does not file a suit before the king, nor says to the user before his family ‘how is it that you are using this thing which belongs to me?’—such a man, after the lapse of ten years, does not deserve to ‘recover’—obtain possession of—that thing;—i.e., his ownership entirely ceases.”

What is meant by ‘seeing’ is knowledge, and not actual seeing with the eyes; which latter is expressed by the term ‘in his presence.’

By others’—is explained by some to mean not by collaterals or relatives; another Smṛti text adding these ‘collaterals and relatives’ as exceptions to the present rule:—‘when a thing is used by relatives and collaterals, the ownership does not cease.’

This however is not right; as this explanation would make the rule indefinite; it being uncertain who are to be regarded as ‘collaterals’ and ‘relatives.’ If ‘relationship’ in general were meant, then there would be no one left (who would not hear some sort of relationship to the man). Consequently the text must be taken to mean that the rule hero laid down applies to all cases where some one else uses a thing belonging ṭo another person.

In this case however the term ‘others’ would be merely re-iterative, and as such superfluous. For there is no person to whom the term ‘other’ could be applicable. The wife, the father and the son are all spoken of as ‘one’s own self;’ specially in such texts as—‘the wife is the half of one’s self,’ ‘it is one’s own self that is called the son.’ Hence between husband and wife, or between father and son, mere using cannot he regarded as a ground of ownership. In fact in their case also, if they are separated, when the time of using has arrived, if one does not use it, this fact becomes a precluder of his ownership. In the case of the wife’s dowry, if it has been pledged by the husband, her ownership does not cease by using, so long as the husband is alive, and the reason for this is that she is entirely dependent upon him, and there is no absolute separation between them; her dowry also has to be looked after by the husband; and the law also (verse 149) is found to make an exception in favour of the property of the king, the Vedic scholar, and women.

The present verse having described the loss of ownership of the owner who ignores adverse possession, the next verse proceeds to show to whom the said property passes over.—(147)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 222), which adds the following explanation:—‘If the rightful owner of a property looks upon his property being used by another, without his presenting it to him as a friendly gift, or some such thing,—and does not speak out, complain,—for ten years, then he is no longer entitled to receive it; i.e., his ownership over it ceases’;—in Vyavahāra-Bālambhaṭṭī (p. 101),—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 65b).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.147-148)

Gautama (12.37-38).—‘The property of a person who is neither an idiot nor a minor, having been used by strangers before his eyes for ten years, comes to belong to him who uses it; but not if it is used by Vedic Scholars, ascetics or royal officials.’

Vaśiṣṭha (16.17)—‘Whatever property belonging to one has been enjoyed by another person for ten years continuously is lost to the owner.’

Yājñavalkya (2.24).—‘If a man sees his landed property being enjoyed by others, and does not complain about it, he loses it after twenty years of such possession: in the case of other properties, ownership lapses after only ten years’ adverse possession.’

Śukranīti (1.5.443-46).—‘The property which is ceaselessly enjoyed for sixty years, even without title, cannot be claimed hack by anybody. The following cannot he destroyed by length of adverse possession: pledge, boundary-land, minor’s property, trust property, sealed deposit, female slaves, government property and property of the Vedic Scholar. The owner who is indifferent to his property and does not complain about trespasses on his property, cannot, get hack by law-suit that property, on the expiry of the above period.’

Nārada (1.78-80).—‘If a man is foolish enough to allow his goods to he enjoyed by strangers in his own eyesight, they shall belong to the possessor, even in the presence, and during the life-time, of the rightful owner. Whatever the owner looking on quietly suffers to be enjoyed by strangers for ten years, though he is present, that cannot be recovered by him. If he is neither an idiot nor a minor, and the enjoyment takes place before his eyes, his right to it is extinct by law, and the possessor is allowed to keep it.’

Bṛhaspati (9.7, 9, 10).—‘He, whose possession has been continuous from the time of occupation, and has never been interrupted for a period of thirty years, cannot he deprived of such property. He who does not raise a protest when a stranger is giving away his landed property in his sight, cannot again recover that estate, even though he he possessed of a written title to it. Possession held by three generations produces ownership for strangers, no doubt, when they are related to one another in the degree of a Sapiṇḍa: it does not stand good in the case of Sakulyas.’

Vyāsa (Aparārka, p. 632).—‘If the landed property of a man has been enjoyed by others for twenty years, his ownership to it is not restored.’

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: