Verse 8.185

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

निक्षेपोपनिधी नित्यं न देयौ प्रत्यनन्तरे ।
नश्यतो विनिपाते तावनिपाते त्वनाशिनौ ॥ १८५ ॥

nikṣepopanidhī nityaṃ na deyau pratyanantare |
naśyato vinipāte tāvanipāte tvanāśinau || 185 ||

Deposits, open and sealed, should never be handed over to the next-of-kin; in the event of a mishap occurring, they become lost; though they do not become lost, if no mishap occurs.—(185)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

‘Next-of-kin,’—of the depositor; i.e., his son, or brother, or wife. If the depositor has the right of ownership, so has his wife also; the son also has a right over the property of his grandfather; and the brother also, who is still united in property, has a right over it. Hence, if the depositor happens to be sent, any one of these relatives may tell the depository—‘give the deposit to me, it belongs to me’;—on this the depository may hand it over to him thinking—‘this is their joint property, one has deposited it and another is taking it away, what harm is there in this?’—and it is with a view to guard against this that the text says—‘Deposits, open or sealed, shall not be handed over to the next-of-kin.’

A hortatory argument is added—‘In the event of a mishap occurring, they become los t,’—‘mishap’ in the form of the kinsman going out of the country and so forth,—if any such happens ‘they become lost.’ If the kinsman, having received the deposit, did not make it over to the person who had deposited it, then, on being charged by the latter, what answer could the depositary give? It would be no answer to say—‘it was taken away by your brother, who was the joint owner of it’; because it has been declared—‘as the delivery so the recovery’ (180); so that the deposit should be restored to the person who actually deposited it, be he the rightful owner or not. This is the simple fact that is set forth in this detail.

If however nothing happens to the ‘next-of-kin’ then there would be no harm in restoring the deposit to him; this is what is meant by the assertion.—‘They do not become lost, if no mishap occurs.’ Because in this case the answer of the depositary would be—‘I restored it to him as otherwise it might become lost with me.’

What the text means is that—‘if the deposit has been taken away by the depositor’s kinsman, then, on being asked by the depositor to restore it, the depositary shall make it good out of his own property.’—(185)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

This verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 87), which adds the following explanation:—If the depositor is living, deposits, sealed or open, should never be given by the depository to any such near relative of the depositor as may have a share in the property,—during the absence of the depositor himself; for if the said relative happen to die, the deposits become lost, i.e., they do not reach the depositor himself; though if the relative does not die, they may perhaps reach him. So that in the event of the relative’s death, it would be open to the original depositor to demand from the depository the value of the deposits; and in order to guard against this, the depository should always return the deposits to the depositor himself, while he lives.

It is quoted in Kṛtyakalpataru (83a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Bṛhaspati (12.9).—‘A deposit must he restored to the very man who kept it, in the very manner in which it was delivered; it must not be restored to the next of kin (of the depositor).’