Chapter 5.2 - Laws on Deposit (upanidhi)

Yājñavalkya has treated ‘deposit’ as the second title of lawsuit in sequence. He has devoted only three verses to describe all necessary laws on Deposits. From the definition given by Yājñavalkya, upanidhi appears as the deposit of an article contained in a box, which is handed over to another without describing the contents of the box. The article placed in such way is called aupanidhika. The general law, regarding upanidhi or sealed deposit, is that it should be returned in the same condition.^[1] It means the person who has deposited the thing in whatever manner or condition, is entitled to restore back or receive back in the same condition or manner such as, bearing seals, etc., as before. This provision suggests that the person to whom the article is delivered should re-deliver it to the depositor as it has been handed over. As such, it may be presumed that, the idea, incorporated here, is like that of the section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act that the person is not permitted to deny the authority or title of the depositor.^[2]

An exception is set forth propagating that the depository is not responsible in certain cases to give back the deposit [i.e., upanidhi] intact. The depository needs not to restore or to return the article deposited, if it has been taken away or lost by the act of king, divine reason, i.e. due to working of natural forces, accident, etc., or stolen by thief.^[3] Similar law is found in Manu and Nārada also.^[4] The depository is protected thereby, when the lost or any damage is not caused by his fraudulent act or negligence, but due to some unseen and unavoidable circumstances. However, this exemption or defence cannot be resorted to, in case of a deposit not returned on demand, even though the deposit has been later destroyed or lost by calamities arising through fate, king, etc. If the depository has not returned the deposit when demanded by the depositor and after that loss occurs for any cause, then the depository has to suffer for the loss. According to Yājñavalkya, he should be compelled to make good the thing or the value of the article and pay a fine equal to that amount.^[5]

The most important law, which holds good even today is that if the person who is entrusted with the deposit [i.e., upanidhi] of his own will makes a living, i.e. uses, appropriates, or deals with the deposit on his own accord or makes money or profit by the use of the deposit then he is held guilty. There is provision to punish such a depository and should be made to return the deposit with increase or interest. Yājñavalkya explicitly declares this rule to be applicable to some other kinds,viz. yācita, anvāhita, nyāsa, nikṣepa and the like.^[6] He has not explained these terms. Most probably during his time, these terms were known to all and so needed no further explanations. The commentators have defined these terms. The last provision advocated by Yājñavalkya is still relevant, which is made a criminal offence under Indian Penal Code. Section 405 of this Act, considers it to be criminal breach of trust, whoever being any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, the person dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property, or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. Moreover, the laws on deposit, described by Yājñavalkya, and in other Smṛtis, can be traced more or less with the provisions of bailment incorporated in section 148, 151, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162 of the Indian Contract Act.^[7] Under Section 148 of this Act, bailment means the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose upon a condition that it should be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the direction of the person delivering them.