Verse 8.164

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

सत्या न भाषा भवति यद्यपि स्यात् प्रतिष्ठिता ।
बहिश्चेद् भाष्यते धर्मात्नियताद् व्यवहारिकात् ॥ १६४ ॥

satyā na bhāṣā bhavati yadyapi syāt pratiṣṭhitā |
bahiśced bhāṣyate dharmātniyatād vyavahārikāt || 164 ||

No contract, even though substantiated, is valid, if what is contracted for is contrary to law or to established custom.—(161)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

Words expressive of something to be done is called ‘Bhāṣā,’ ‘contract’ in general; and what is there laid down should be done.

“Is it meant that no contract is valid?”

No; that only which is ‘contrary to law,’—that is regarded as ‘contrary to law,’ ‘illegal,’ which is opposed to practice sanctioned by the scriptures; e.g., interest more than five per cent., the selling of wives and children, the giving away of one’s entire hereditary property and so forth.

‘Even though fully substantiated,’—i.e., reduced to writing, or pledged by a surety, and so forth;—it is ‘not valid’

^‘Custom’—practice sanctioned by usage;—‘established’—long-standing, not modern.

This verse is supplementary to what has gone in the preceding verse, regarding the invalidity of gifts and other transactions effected by dependent persons and by persons not in their senses and so forth.—(164)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (65b), which adds the following explanation:—An agreement, even though formally put in writing, has no legal force, if it is contrary to the laws and customs prevalent among business-men; and such an agreement cannot be enforced,—such agreement, for instance, as where a man who has children agrees to bequeath all his property to a stranger.

It is quoted also in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, 21b and 39b), which has the following notes—‘Pratiṣṭhita’, free from the defect of being impossible and unknown and so forth,—‘bhāṣā’, proposition, statement,—is not ‘satya,’ accepted by the king or the court,—‘that statement which is contrary to all rules of business, even though it be established by evidence, oral and documentary, should not be accepted’; e.g., the statement that ‘this man has promised his entire property to me’,—when the man concerned is one who has got sons and oilier successors.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (7.11).—‘That instrument is termed proof which is not adverse to peculiar local usages, which detines clearly the nature of the pledge given, and is free, from confusion in the arrangement of t he subject-matter and in the succession of the syllables.’

Nārada (1.136).—‘That, document is said to be valid which is not adverse, to the custom of the country, the contents of which answer to the rules regarding pledges and other kinds of security and which is consistent in import and language.’