Verse 8.150

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

यः स्वामिनाऽननुज्ञातमाधिं भूङ्क्तेऽविचक्षणः ।
तेनार्धवृद्धिर्मोक्तव्या तस्य भोगस्य निष्कृतिः ॥ १५० ॥

yaḥ svāminā'nanujñātamādhiṃ bhūṅkte'vicakṣaṇaḥ |
tenārdhavṛddhirmoktavyā tasya bhogasya niṣkṛtiḥ || 150 ||

The fool, who, without the owner’s permission, uses a deposit, shall have to remit half the amount of the interest, as compensation for such use.—(150)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been declared (under 144)—‘a deposit should not be used by force,—by using it one renounces the interest:’ and what was meant there was the absolute appropriation of the entire deposit; and when such using has been forbidden, it is only right that by using a deposit by force, the man should lose the entire amount of his interest. By merely using the article however, the deposit does not become destroyed, it only becomes deteriorated, in colour, brightness and decorations; and the present verse lays down that in such cases the man shall lose half the amount of his interest.

In a case however, where the deposit consists of new and valuable ornaments or clothes, and on being worn they become spoilt,—there is to be not merely loss of interest, but the man is to be made to pay the price of the property spoilt; this is as the matter has been explained by great scholars.

Ṛju (Yajvan) (?) however has explained as follows:—In a case where business is carried on by the master as well as by the servant, and a pledge has been deposited by the servant, and seen by the master also,—if after some time, the pledger says to the servant—‘I have need for the article pledged,’—and is permitted by him to use it; whereupon, if the master, on seeing him using it, cancels the pledge and takes it back;—in such a case half the amount of interest has to be renounced.

This however is not right; as, under the circumstances, transactions carried on by the master or the servant stand upon the same footing. So that when the using has been permitted by one, it cannot be held to be not permitted by the other and hence illegal. In such a case, it is actual ‘ownership’ that forms the denotation of the term ‘owner.’ Otherwise, the person who deposits the article would certainly appear to be the ‘owner’; but the servant is not the ‘owner’; so that if he does give away the thing, he would be only a thief. For this reason ‘ownership’ has to be attributed to him. Hence when the using has been permitted by the servant, it is treated as permitted by the master also.

For these reasons, the meaning of the verse must ho as previously explained and the mention of the ‘owner’ is only for the purpose of filling up the metre.

Between the two terms in the expression—‘Bhuṅktevicakṣaṇaḥ,’ an ‘a’ is to be understood as present in a merged form due to the proximity of the two vowels (e and a). That man who entertains the idea—‘my interest is already safe, so that the use of the article is an additional gain’—is called here a ‘fool’ For no such transaction is sanctioned by law as would involve both the securing of interest and the using of the pledged article; hence it is only the interest that should be earned.

‘Compensation’—Expiatory price; exchange.

Others have explained the prohibition contained in the present verse as referring to the case where the pledge is not redeemed, even after the principal has been doubled; and they hold that the fault, in this case is comparatively insignificant (hence only half the interest is lost).

But first of all, these persons should be required to point out the subject of Yājñavalkya’s assertion (Vyavahāra-58) regarding the ‘pledge becoming lost if it is not redeemed on the principal having been doubled.’—(150)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 23) [for whose explanatory note, see note on verse 144];—in Aparārka (p. 659), which adds that what is here laid down applies to cases where very little use has been made of the thing; in cases where the pledged thing has been very much used, no interest is to be paid; thus the reduction in the interest has to be determined by the extent of the use to which the thing may have been put;—and in Kṛtyakalpataru, (70a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (1.128).—‘That foolish person who uses a pledge without the authority of the owner, shall lose one half of his interest, as a compensation for such use.’

[See Texts under 143-144.]