Verse 8.188

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

निक्षेपेष्वेषु सर्वेषु विधिः स्यात् परिसाधने ।
समुद्रे नाप्नुयात् किं चिद् यदि तस्मान्न संहरेत् ॥ १८८ ॥

nikṣepeṣveṣu sarveṣu vidhiḥ syāt parisādhane |
samudre nāpnuyāt kiṃ cid yadi tasmānna saṃharet || 188 ||

In the case of all deposits, such should be the method of restoration; but in the case of a sealed deposit, he should incur nothing, if he does not extract anything from it.—(188)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

In the case of open deposits ‘the method of restoration’ shall be as just described in verses 182 et seq.

The depositary shall not incur the censure of the debtor, as regards the deposit to be restored.

This same rule should be applicable to the case where the article deposited has been destroyed by rats, etc. For instance, the article deposited having been wrapped up in a piece of cloth and placed in a wooden vessel, if rats, with their sharp teeth, should cut through the wood and devour the article,—it is no fault of the depositary’s. Then again, if the article is deposited in the form of a bundle sealed in a basket,—on account of its being such as cannot be contained in a wooden box,—then also if it is eaten by rats, it is no fault of the depositary’s. This is specially so, if it is known to the depositor, who has been informed by the depositary that he possesses no wooden box (where the article would be safe from rats, etc.),—or if the depositor knows the man’s character and is close by (and hence is in a position to know that the article has been really damaged by rats).—(188).

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

The second half of this verse is quoted in Vivādaratnākara (p. 86), which adds the explanation that if the deposit has been handed over to the depository sealed,—then, unless the latter extracts anything from it, he shall incur no blame; but if he does extract anything, then he certainly becomes open to censure. In the case of an unsealed deposition the other hand, even though he may have extracted something, if he delivers it before the depositor, he does not incur blame.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Nārada (2.14, 15).—‘The same law applies in the case of Yācita, Anvāhita, and other forms of deposits, also in those of articles made over to artisans, as also Nyāsa and Pratinyāsa deposits; if a man takes charge of a wealthy boy, the law applicable in this case also is the same.’

Bṛhaspati (12.15).—‘The same set of rules applies in the case of a bailment for delivery to a third party, a loan for use, an article made over to an artisan, a pledge and a person offering himself for protection.’

Yājñavalkya (2.67).—‘The same law applies to the other forms of deposit- the Yācita, the Anvāhita, the Nyāsa and the Nikṣepa.’