Yajnavalkya-smriti (Vyavaharadhyaya)—Critical study

by Kalita Nabanita | 2017 | 87,413 words

This page relates ‘Laws Relating to Resumption of Gift (dattapradanika)’ of the study on the Vyavaharadhyaya of the Yajnavalkya-smriti: one of the most prominent Smritis dealing with Dharmashastra (ancient Indian science of law), dating to the 1st century B.C. The Yajnavalkyasmriti scientifically arranges its contents in three sections: Acara (proper conduct), Vyavahara (proper law) and Prayashcitta (expiation). Vyavahara deals with judicial procedure and legal system such as substantive law and procedural law.

Chapter 5.10 - Laws Relating to Resumption of Gift (dattāpradānika)

Yājñavalkya deals with the laws regulating gifts and its acceptance under the title dattāpradānika very briefly only in two verses. He has placed this title of law at seventh place. The nomenclature provided by the author literally means non-delivery means non delivery or resumption of gifts. In the Manusmṛti, the author has adopted the term dattasyānapakarma as that title of law, which governs the laws relating to gifts.[1]

The Mitākṣarā commentary states that dattāpradānika is of two-fold designation, viz.,

  1. dattānapakarma meaning the resumption of a gift and
  2. dattāpradānika, i.e. nonresumption of gifts.

The title of law wherein a man wishes to get back the article, which has been bestowed already improperly, is known as resumption of gifts. Non-resumption of gifts indicates that title at law in which there is non-resumption or non-retaking of what has been given. It is explained to be of four types. These are respectively deya i.e. what may be given, adeya i.e. what may not be given, datta meaning valid gift and adatta denoting invalid gift.[2]

Yājñavalkya declares that one may give away his own property, without causing any detriment to the family, except his wife and son. Here conditions for making gift is delineated. What kind of property may be given as gift is revealed here that one can give whatever is his own, but it should not affect the interest of the family members. The properties, which are expressed as not entitled to be given as gift include wife and son. He also cannot give the entire property if progeny i.e. son and grandson exist. Moreover, he cannot donate the property that has been already promised to another.[3]

The Mitākṣarā, commenting upon this provision, elaborates that one should not give as gift what is required for maintaining the family. Therefore, he should donate as much that may remain after using for the maintenance of the family since it is necessary.[4] Thereafter, Yājñavalkya lays down the rule that acceptance of a gift especially of immovable property should be made in public.[5] The purpose of this provision is to avoid later any kind of fraud, dispute, etc. Special stress is given on immovable property, as in case of such property delivery of possession cannot be proved like movable property. It is necessary provision governing gift that one must give whatever has been promised to other by him. A man is forbidden to revoke or resume a gift again.250 Yājñavalkya has not expressly mentioned about valid and invalid gift. It may be presumed that the gift made in accordance with the rules will be a valid gift, and that made in contravention of the rules prescribed by Yājñavalkya will be an invalid gift.

The laws on gift incorporated in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti are found in similarity with the provisions of gifts in the Transfer of Property Act. The basic concept of gift is stated under Section 122 that it is transfer of movable or immovable property made voluntarily without consideration. It is necessary under Section 122 of the Act that gift must be accepted by one on behalf of whom it is given. Thus, it resembles with the provisions of Yājñavalkyasmṛti that acceptance of gifts must be public thereby implying that one must convey his acceptance of gifts. Under Section 126 of the same Act, it is laid down that a gift cannot be revoked except two conditions i.e., revocation by mutual agreement of donor and donee and revocation by rescission as contracts.[6] Therefore, the basic intention of the lawmaker of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti and that of the Act in force seems to be same that once a gift is made it should not be resumed, or a gift revocable at the pleasure of donor is no gift at all.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Manusmṛti, 8.4

[2]:

adhunā vihitāvihitamārgadvayaśrayapayā dattānapakarma dattāpradānikamiti calabdhānadvayaṃ dānākhyaṃ vyavahārapadamabhidhīyate/… yatpratyāharaṇīyaṃ takkathyate/ Mitākṣarā onYS., 2.175

[3]:

svaṃ kuṭumbāvirodhena deyaṃ dārasutādṛte/ nānvaye sati sarvasvaṃ yaccānyasmai pratiśrutam// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.175

[4]:

kuṭumbabharaṇāvaśiṣṭanitiyāvat/ taddadyāt/ tadbharaṇasyāvaśyakatvāt/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.

[5]:

pratigrahaḥ prakāśaḥ syātsthāvarasya viśeṣataḥ/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.176250 deyaṃ pratiśrutaṃ caiva dattvā nāpaharetpunaḥ// Ibid.

[6]:

Sinha, R.K., Op.cit., pages462-471

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: