Ancient Indian court system (Vedic jurisprudence)

The Dharmaśāstras typically address a segment referred to as vyavahāramātṛokayā. The term

vyavahāramātṛokayā isn't described inside the Yājñavalkyasmṛti. The policies of technique are
provided, generally grouped underneath the caption vyavahāramātṛokayā. those are the rules of
fashionable application along with some uncommon exceptions. The word mātṛokā seems to
have denoted fundamentals or foundation. for example, the work coping with popular guidelines
of system and means of evidence composed by using Jimūtavāhana is styled as the
Vyavahāramātṛokā.[1] The word vyavahāramātṛkā is used to suggest the essential or simple
ideas or regulations of vyavahāra. Aparārka states that at the beginning of the Vyavahārādhyāya,
the rules of vyavahāra are dealt with.[2] The text commented upon via Viśvarūpācārya mentions
the fundamentals or fundamental principles of vyavahāra below the identify
sāmānyanyāyaprakaraṇa.[3] The same is described inside the texts of Vijñāneśvara[4] and
Aparārka[5] underneath two captions viz. sādhāraṇavyavahāramātṛkāprakaraṇa and
asādhāraṇavyavahāramātṛkāprakaraṇa. This part of vyavahāra in the Vyavahārādhyāya mainly
pertains to what comes inside the purview of procedural regulation or judicial proceeding in
cutting-edge sense.[6] Judicial or criminal system lays down the rules which govern the
technique of litigation. It deals with the equipment and the way for enforcement of prison rights,
obligations or remedies.

earlier than going to talk about about the judicial method as defined in the Vyavahārādhyāya of
the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, it's far vital to have a brief idea of the modern-day judicial manner. inside
the present day day justice delivery system, there are in particular kinds of judicial lawsuits
together with civil proceeding as well as criminal intending. The civil proceeding is initiated by
using the aggrieved birthday celebration who's called plaintiff, either in individual or through an
endorse, within the shape of a plaint wherein all the allegations towards the defendant, who has
violated the rights of the plaintiff, are raised earlier than the perfect Civil courtroom of
regulation. Thereafter, on receipt of the summons, from the Civil courtroom, the defendant
seems either in individual or thru an advocate and submits his/her written statements in
opposition to the allegations made in the plaint. At this stage, the defendant in addition to his
denial, he might also boost allegations towards the plaintiff by means of submitting counter
claims, and so forth. In case the defendant denies the allegations, the plaintiff’s side is asked to
adduce their evidences both written, documentary or oral evidences thru witnesses. After of
entirety of technique of taking evidences of the plaintiff’s side, the defendant’s side is allowed to
adduce his evidences inside the equal way in aid of his declare. next to the alternate of pleadings
and evidences, the argument takes region and the decide after hearing each sides and considering
the evidences on document, broadcasts the judgments in favour of either of the parties. In case,
the defeated birthday celebration is not satisfied with the judgment of the courtroom of authentic
jurisdiction, he may also pick an attraction earlier than the appellate court docket.[7]

The criminal case intending is instituted either by means of a aggrieved party or by means of all
and sundry on his behalf, lodging a criticism called an FIR within the Police Station, or the
Police on behalf of the kingdom in absence of any grievance from any man or woman might also
initiate suo-moto intending. apart from this, a complainant might also approach the suitable
criminal court docket of regulation through submitting a complaint case alleging towards the
accused for causing damage and harm both to his person or to his assets. In a criminal case
where the Police case is registered, the Police after registration of the case conducts the research
and for the motive of research, the Police may also arrest the accused folks in case of non-
bailable offences. The Police, after investigation, submits the case before the involved
courtroom. in the proceeding, beneath criticism case, after taking awareness of the offence, the
summon is issued to the accused men and women, and thereafter the enquiry is carried out either
via Justice of the Peace or through the Police. In a criminal intending, the public Prosecutor
represents the kingdom and conducts the case on behalf of the sufferer. The criminal court offers
identical possibilities to the events to symbolize their instances. The parties of a criminal case
have the same rights to produce their oral and documentary evidences and have the right to be
represented and region their arguments thru their advocates. The court docket either punishes or
acquits the accused character after hearing their arguments and after considering the evidences of
both the edges. In case, the accused is punished, he has the right to decide upon appeal, in the
alternative in case of acquittal the sufferer additionally has the proper to select an attraction
earlier than the appellate courtroom against the judgment and sentence of the unique criminal
court of law.[8]

guidelines of system is an critical a part of criminal gadget or justice transport machine.

guidelines of procedure adjust how the law might be administered while finding out a case, i.e.,
the shape, way and order of steps taken in carrying out a lawsuit. The rules are prescribed in
order that a fair, orderly, efficient and consistent utility of essential justice to all instances,
brought before a courtroom, may be ensured. In absence of the systematic and formal regulations
of system, the prison gadget might end up inefficient, unfair or biased and would imbalance the
peace of the society. As a end result, people will lose faith and admire on it. It consists of rules
approximately jurisdiction or authority of courts, organization of fits by complaint, document,
and so forth., pleadings, serving notice to different parties, arrest or detention of people,
discovery, inspection and manufacturing of proof, listening to, inquiries and trials, dismissal of
suits, judgment, enchantment, illustration of recommend, cost, issue and different count number,
governing the technique of proceedings. essentially, these are the standardized tips or policies to
pay attention and determine judicial actions.
The systematic improvement of the regulations of technique can be visible in the
Vyavahārādhyāya of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, that is of terrific impact inside the judicial device.
Judicial intending begins with the institution of the in shape. commonly a in shape or litigation is
said to have begun with the lodging of a grievance to the king.[9] inside the present judicial
device additionally, no civil case can be commenced with out a plaint even though it isn't usually
mandatory in case of a criminal case. An aggrieved man or woman, whose rights are violated are
directed by way of Yājñavalkya to open an movement at law. as a consequence, he appears to
discourage the king and his officers to provoke or promote a lawsuit on their personal account. it
is useful to save you the king and his officers from insisting humans to litigate and increase the
range of litigation amongst people out of desire for wealth or cash. it's miles explicit in the
Manusmṛti that neither the king nor every person of his servants have to start a lawsuit
themselves or suppresses one that is presented before him by the human beings.[10] Nārada
states extra elaborately that they need to be punished, who while not having any relation of
brother, father, son, appointed agent or being involved personally inside the litigation institute
any criticism.[11] that is how false litigation is forbidden among human beings.

It appears that possibly among the Smṛtis, for the first time in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, judicial
technique is split into four parts. within the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, the judicial process is proven as
having four feet, i.e., to comprise four components or degrees[12] .

Vijñāneśvara explains these four pādas respectively:

the petition of the complainant is the first level called bhāṣāpāda,

the second one is the respond of the defendant referred to as uttarapāda,

adducing of evidence or evidence is the kriyāpāda, the third degree and sooner or later

the fourth stage is the decision viz. sādhyasiddhipāda.[13]

Viśvarūpa mentions the four components to be pratijñā, uttara, sādhana and nirṇaya, that come in
order one after any other.[14] Aparārka refers pratyākalita as one of the four degrees, which
means deliberation of the sabhyas, concerning the approach and burden of evidence.[15] He
quotes okātyāyana to assist his view. in line with okayātyāyana, pūrvapakṣa, uttara, pratyākalita
and kriyā are the 4 elements of judicial proceeding.[16] The Mitāokṣarā commentary has now
not normal pratyākalita as part of judicial process inside the above potential as litigants are not
immediately related to it.[17] while the claim of the plaintiff is admitted through the alternative
celebration, then the judicial intending might also have contained handiest components rather
than 4. In such case, there isn't any want of kriyāpāda, i.e., the assertion of complainant’s
evidence and of sādhyasiddhi as there may be not anything to be mounted via examination of
proof.[18] In a respond of denial most effective, the evidences are to be adduced. otherwise, the
respond of defendant itself proves the case.[19]

these 4 tiers of judicial manner are followed in all lawsuits along with ṛṇādāna, and many others.
Bṛhaspati additionally describes the 4 components of a judicial proceeding in the light of
Yājñavalkya. these are pūrvapakṣa, i.e. announcement of the plaintiff stating the case, uttara, that
is the respond or solution of defendant, kriyā, i.e. the trial of the case and nirṇaya that's judicial
choice.[20]

Nārada additionally lays down the 4 ft of judicial method however in a exclusive way, viz.

dharma,

vyavāhara,

caritra, and

rājaśāsana.

Dharma is said to be based totally on fact, vyavāhara depends upon witnesses, carita rests on
usages or declarations decreased to writing, and rājaśāsana on king’s order or command.[21] but,
generally the plaint, respond, evidence and choice comprise the 4 feet or ranges of vyavāhara,
not dharma and the alternative three. The later can be considered because the four ft of choice
(nirṇaya) that's one of the 4 degrees of criminal process.[22] So, dharma, etc., are the four ft of
lawsuit in a long-drawn or oblique sense. the similar view is expressed through Bṛhaspati.[23]

inside the Vyavahārādhyāya concerning bhāṣā, the first degree of judicial proceeding, the rule of
thumb is ready out that the allegations made with the aid of arthī ought to be written down in
presence of pratyarthī whilst he appears before the court and is to be supplied with the year,
month, fortnight, day, names of the parties, castes of the parties concerned, and many others.[24]
Arthī is person who seeks the assist of the courtroom, or who has a motive of motion, and
pratyarthī is the other one against whom assistance is sought inside the courtroom of justice.[25]
It method the plaintiff and defendant of modern-day judicial gadget. they're also recognized via
the call vādī and prativādī respectively whereas from time to time vādī denotes a ‘litigant’, who
can be either plaintiff or defendant. some other phrase used to indicate an arthī is abhiyotṛ and
that of the pratyarthī is abhiyukta. The statistics offered to the king or any officer in rate of
administration of justice is referred to as bhāṣā, meaning the plaint. Bhāṣā, pratijñā, pakṣa are the
synonyms used to denote a plaint.[26] At the beginning, the plaintiff hotels a plaint to the king or
in the court docket of justice informing his grievances, and after that once defendant comes, or is
brought earlier than the court, then the grievance is to be written once more before the defendant
with all info of 12 months, month, fortnight, caste, names of parties, and so on.[27] even as
writing the plaint or grievance in presence of defendant, it must be identical as offered by using
the plaintiff, at the beginning, in his absence. There have to now not be any deviation from the
previous price or claim, i.e. the plaintiff first alleged. In case of any critical discrepancy between
the at first preferred criticism and the plaint sooner or later recorded in front of opposite party,
the case turns into fatal.[28] in this context, Viśvarūpa states that in advance the plaint must be
stated down at the ground or on a board, and after that on leaf or paper while it has been revised.
[29] it is pointed out by means of Vijñāneśvara that the amendment of the plaint ought to be
approved till the reply is not filed and no longer afterwards, otherwise, it can result in infinite
intending.[30]

for that reason, Yājñavalkya’s rule of method desires the plaint to be equipped with info in order
that the allegations of plaintiff may be made specific and specific, putting time, region, object
and the manner in which purpose of motion has arose. It ensures the presence of each the parties
collectively at an early stage of judicial intending. Plaint is to always disclosed the date and time
relating to the cause of action, i.e. yr, month, fortnight, day, and many others., and the
identification of the parties, i.e., the name, caste, and many others., of the plaintiff and defendant.
the alternative vital information regarding the issue and subjectmatter of dispute, consisting of
degree and amount, vicinity, actual time of the day, and so on., also are to be protected.[31] on
this context, it's far noteworthy that Order 7, Rule 1-eight of The Code of Civil method also
requires the plaint to comprise vital particulars like call, description, location of house, etc., of
plaintiff and defendant.[32] Aparārka restricts use of all the information in wellknown for all fits
however the ones vital from the point of view of a selected lawsuit should be written down inside
the plaint.[33] as an instance, the reference of the year isn't always useful for all the proceedings
however in particular applicable in instances of mortgage, acquisition by means of present or
purchase. Vijñāneśvara observes that Yājñavalkya has not mentioned one by one the bad plaints.
in line with him, the purpose at the back of it is that, the ones missing the functions or crucial
components of plaints, as said through Yājñavalkya, turn out to be horrific from that very reality.
[34] this does not appear to be the genuine rationalization of such omission in the
Yājñavalkyasmṛti. B.okay. Swain is of the opinion that Vijñāneśvara has taken lodge to an
excuse to save the Yājñavalkyasmṛti from any likely price of incompleteness as he became aware
of the improvement made through Nārada, Bṛhaspati and kātyāyaṇa in this rely.[35]
each Vijñāneśvara and Aparārka have mentioned elaborately, with illustrations, the traits of a
bad, vitiated or faulty plaint. here, to make it clean, they've quoted from the other Smṛtis without
bringing up the name. A plaint is susceptible to be rejected the issue-count number of which is
impossible (aprasiddha), does no longer reveal any injury (nirābādha), without making any
which means (nirartha), without any motive of movement (niṣprayojana), cannot be proved
(asādhya), self-contradictory (viruddha).[36] the instance of not possible situation rely of plaint
is such ‘the defendant having taken my hare’s horn have no longer returned it’. ‘The defendant
moves about in his residence within the light of the lamp of my house’which constitutes the
example for disclosing no injury. Causeless consisting of ‘This Devadatta reads in a captivating
voice close to my residence’, and so forth. impossible to show consisting of ‘Devadatta along
with his eyebrow broken laughed at me’. ‘i used to be abused by way of a dumb man’ explains
contradictory, etc. The faults of plaint are cited and explained within the Nāradasmṛti.[37] It
seems that the diffused information on drafting of a plaint progressively evolved after the
composition of the Yājñavalkyasmṛti.

Yājñavalkya prescribes rule for the second degree of the judicial proceeding as the reply of the
defendant given after he has heard the purport of the criticism, must be recorded in writing in
presence of the plaintiff or the complainant.[38] once the plaint is settled finally, and the contents
of the plaint is made regarded to the defendant, it becomes the obligation of the defendant to
present or file his written assertion, which must consist of right answers to all allegations brought
in opposition to him.

The Mitākṣarā prices a text that a respond is held to be proper while it touches all of the points
raised inside the plaint, which is affordable, no longer ambiguous, with out self-contradiction,
may be understood without in addition clarification.[39] It explains, with instance, four sorts of
answers that a defendant can take hotel to mentioning texts ascribed to Nārada, Bṛhaspati and
okātyāyaṇa.

these are-

(i) saṃpratipatti or satya, i.e. by pleading the reality, which can be called confession or
admission. for example the plaintiff prices the defendant that he owed 100 rupees and the
defendant replies in effective accepting the debt of hundred rupees,
(ii) mithyā i.e. denial of the complaint made in opposition to him. it is whilst charged with the
debt of 100 rupees, he replies as ‘I don’t owe the quantity’,

(iii) pratyavaskandana, i.e. elevating unique plea. it's far whilst in reply of the debt of a hundred
rupees, the defendant accepts that he took it however at the equal time states that later he has
returned or that it's been donated to him,

(iv) pūrvanyāya, meaning plea of a former judgment. This sort of reply is formed while the
defendant says that the plaintiff changed into defeated earlier on a healthy of the same grounds
with him. again, the respond by using denial is of fourfold, viz. ‘that is false’, ‘I don’t know in
any respect’, ‘i was not gift there at that point’ and ‘i was not born then’.[40]

on the third level, after recording defendants’ respond, trial starts with exhibition of the proofs.
consequently an critical question arises regarding the birthday celebration on whom the burden
to evidence his case first lies. it is thrilling that Yājñavalkya, at an earlier time of Hindu judicial
gadget, has dealt with this kind of complex query. The order in adducing proof is said through
the writer that the plaintiff ought to without delay offer in writing the evidences in favour of his
petition, by means of which he proposes to set up the information alleged by way of him.[41]
commonly the proper belongs to the plaintiff or the complainant that he should come first to
show his case. It seems this rule is, in general, applicable in case of a reply of denial, but in
different kinds of respond, the right may additionally shift even to the defendant also. even as
decoding this provision, the Mitākṣarā takes the phrase arthī cited in rule of Yājñavalkyasmṛti
within the feel of 1 who has gained a factor. for this reason, at the same time as saying that the
plaintiff should furnish the evidences, which means thereby the party who has to benefit the
point (i.e. in case of now not adducing proof through any party who may be defeated) need to
have recorded the method of evidence. consequently, whilst the reply pleads a preceding
judgment, the defendant has to present his approach of evidence to set up the fact of a preceding
judgment. In case of denial, the original complainant is to depose the way of evidence. In a reply
of defendant, disclosing a unique plea, he himself has to prove it. So the duty lies on him to jot
down down evidences. If the respond is in the nature of admission, then there's no requirement of
proving any count, and hence, after the second stage handiest, the case comes to an give up.[42]
consequently, according to the Mitāokayṣarā, the plaintiff or defendant has to put in writing
down the evidence relying upon the character of the case on whom the burden of evidence lies.
at the fourth degree of judicial proceeding, the success or defeat of the celebration is to be
determined. Yājñavalkya, for that motive, pronounces that if the evidence produced via the
birthday celebration in favour of his petition holds appropriate then he obtains success or in any
other case the result goes in opposition to him, i.e. he is defeated.[43]

Yājñavalkya after declaring the general policies of the 4 ranges of judicial system deals with the
specific policies regarding judicial intending. Yājñavalkya does not usually allow counter declare
by means of the defendant earlier than making himself free from the prices made by using the
plaintiff. He has included an explanatory rule that's, till the criticism is disposed of, a counter fee
need to now not be raised against him (i.e. the complainant or plaintiff), nor have to every body
else be allowed to bring another case in opposition to him, who's already labouring beneath a
rate, nor should change what has already been stated.[44] this means the defendant being an
accused of an offence cannot lodge a grievance counter charging or claiming against a plaintiff
until and except the fees introduced in opposition to the previous are disproved or he acquits
himself of the authentic complaint. There may also rise up various problems if two distinctive
costs towards each different are to be tried simultaneously. a new criticism ought to now not be
filed against the equal defendant until the case instituted via the first plaintiff is over. It isn't
proper to attack one who's already tormented by impeachment. In this kind of situation, he's
going to no longer be capable of shield himself inside the case nicely, which may cause injustice.
The last of the rule may additionally consult with no longer most effective the exchange of
pleading by using plaintiff but additionally alternate of pleading via defendant.[45]

The Mitāokṣarā observation takes this rule applicable to the plaintiff handiest within the feel that
the complainant ought to by no means contradict his declaration both at the time of creating his
petition and of writing it down before the defendant. Yājñavalkya has already set forth the rule of
thumb that the grievance ought to be taken down before the defendant as it's miles alleged. It
refers back to the aspect that's the challenge-remember of litigation ought to now not be altered
on the time of writing down in presence of defendant. for example, the plaintiff complaining
about theft of money can not allege afterwards theft of material even as writing before defendant.
on the other hand, hereby the plaintiff is also forbidden from converting the title of litigation
such as if he has complained about borrowing of one hundred rupees at hobby, afterward he can't
trade the allegation to stealing of a hundred rupees.[46] The Mitāokṣarā similarly states even
though the unique plea (pratyaskanda) inside the respond of the defendant is within the footing
of a counter declare yet it's far recommend simply to put off the charge raised in opposition to
him. consequently, it's far to be allowed and now not to be restricted.[47]
One exception to the above-stated rule is supplied that during kalahas (violence of speech and
act, i.e. defamation and assault) and sāhasas (destruction of lifestyles or grievous hurt through
guns, poison, and so forth.), a counter price could be permissible.[48] In these fits, a counter
price bears significance a good way to hold a person legally responsible for an offence alleged
towards him. As such, it helps in determining the punishment to be inflicted. The Mitāokṣarā
explains this rule that the counter price may be raised not to institute a new in shape towards the
plaintiff, however to determine whether the punishment need to be harsh or mild. He clarifies it
with an instance, i.e. when the defendant is charged with beating the plaintiff a hundred instances
by a stick, the defendant additionally claims that he has been beaten first by means of the later
after which he either can escape, from punishment or can get much less punishment. but, counter
declare does now not keep good in cases of debt, property and so forth.[49]

This rule of manner is observed inside the Arthaśāstra where besides in kalaha, sāhasa, in
instances among members of guilds and company our bodies, the defendant is not allowed to
deliver counter case.[50] This rule isn't glaring within the Manusmṛti. Nārada subscribes to the
similar view of Yājñavalkya, but with out giving any exception like Yājñavalkya permitting it in
sure instances.[51] as a result, Nārada does now not appear to permit counter fee in any of the
cases while Yājñavalkya lets in counter fee in certain instances like sāhasa, kalaha, and many
others.

An critical rule of system, set forth via Yājñavalkya, resembles the current manner of courts,
taking of bails, i.e. seeking security for costs and attendance of the parties. both plaintiff and
defendant are required to provide protection to make sure satisfaction of the final choice.[52] the
security have to be capable of sporting out the end result of the judgment of the lawsuit. The
principal item at the back of this rule changed into the proper execution of the final orders made
by way of the courtroom of justice. in line with the Mitāokayṣarā, when all and sundry of the
events isn't able to provide surety then court’s servants are to be appointed to take custody or
contend with them and their wages have to be paid each day.[53] hence, a in a position surety is
taken from the defendant to comply with the selection, if surpassed towards him, and from the
plaintiff for charge of any excellent, charge or price of proceeding imposed by regulation, if
located to have introduced false price.

Yājñavalkya prescribes a totally strict rule of system toward unsuccessful plaintiffs and
defendants after a competition. If after denial of the declare by way of the defendant, the plaintiff
establishes the case via evidences, then the defendant need to pay the in shape amount to him
after which equal amount to the king as a penalty. at the contrary, if the claimant is proved to be
false, he should pay to the king as pleasant two times the quantity as claimed by means of him.
[54] via this rule, the author discourages group of a case with false declare by way of a plaintiff
and false denial by using defendant, instead expects a plaint to be based on straightforward
claims and admission of real legal responsibility on the a part of the defendant. consequently a
heavy best of double the quantity claimed by using the plaintiff become imposed on him if his
claim became observed to be false. inside the same way, the defendant became at risk of pay
same amount claimed within the suit to the king too if his denial changed into located false. This
rule seems to be precautionary which has been implemented to lessen the fabricated litigation
many of the people.

Yājñavalkya refers to the guideline regulating a lawsuit whilst attended by way of guess (sapaṇa)
which also shows prevalence of lawsuit with out bet.[55] when a lawsuit is observed through a
guess then the defeated celebration need to have to pay the usual first-rate prescribed for a
defeated celebration alongwith the amount of wager or stake to the king and the quantity in
dispute to the a success birthday party.[56] therefore, the amount of bet is needed to be paid after
the judgment has been said. A lawsuit is understood to be with wager while either both of the
parties or each person of the events to the healthy promises to pay a certain amount of money in
case he's defeated further to the unique claim or quantity in dispute. here the Mitāokayṣarā is of
the view that if wager is promised by means of one birthday celebration simplest and now not by
way of the alternative birthday party, in such case, when the former is defeated then he has to
pay the quantity of guess and whilst different celebration is defeated then quantity of wager, isn't
always to be paid by way of him.[57] those policies of system propose about the bills to be made
to the king after the match is determined. these payments may be seemed as the courtroom prices
or stamp costs of contemporary judicial intending. the quantity of cash offered as penalty to the
celebration discovered guilty of either fake plaint or false denial, the amount of ordinary quality
declared on offences, the quantity of guess-these kinds of seem to represent the reimbursement
and value to meet charges of the court docket for attempting the case. It seems that courtroom
charges have been not required to be paid to begin with while instituting the intending because it
occurs these days.

Nārada highly mentions lawsuit with guess and with out bet.[58] but, Nārada has now not
supplied the rule of thumb pointing as to whom the sum staked ought to take delivery of, that is
highly shown inside the Yājñavalkyasmṛti.

the guideline relating to time limit to give the defence is also expounded by using Yājñavalkya.
He stresses on the character of the cases whilst stating while the solution to pliant is to take
delivery of.
according to him, [in disputes about the following, the defence is to be made immediately]:—

sāhasa (killing by way of poison or weapon),

steya (robbery),

pāruṣya (abusive language, attack),

gobhiśāpātyaya (heinous offences, to be imprecated for destruction of existence and wealth, like
killing a milk-giving cow, etc.) and

strī (referring to ladies, e.g. malign treatment to a respectable woman or the deprivation of right
of a female servant),

In other cases, granting of time depends upon the need of the court.[59] some of the court cases
want immediate solution. Nārada concurs with Yājñavalkya concerning the character of court
cases on which defendant is needed to reply right away.[60] it can be observed right here that the
cases which command immediately answer, as laid down with the aid of Nārada and
Yājñavalkya, are more of great nature which fall beneath the kinds of crook cases. This rule is
based totally on prudence. speedy trial is the corner stone of the criminal justice. immoderate
postpone in pleading, i.e. imparting plaint and answer, and so on., of criminal cases need to be
averted to make sure rapid trial. otherwise that could cause grave miscarriage of justice. it is
herbal that inside the complaints of grave or critical damage, if solution isn't always given at an
early time, then there can also occur lack of proof, together with dying of a key witness or lack
of ability of witnesses to testify correctly after lengthy delay. it is able to be a effective method
for the accused to escape from the offence committed by using him. long put off even can impair
the capability of the accused to shield himself. the alternative cases, in which Yājñavalkya leaves
the selection of permitting time on the discretion of the court, appear to be of civil nature, e.g.
debt, and so on. Nārada lays down the rule of thumb of doling out exact variety of days.[61]

Yājñavalkya has no longer made such rule, as a substitute authorizes the courtroom of justice to
determine it, considering relevant aspects of the case. In some cases, time ought to be granted to
make sure the fairness of justice in order that the defendant gets possibility to guard his case
properly. The reason is properly said with the aid of Nārada that due to complex nature of
complaints and weakness of guys’s memory, defendant ought to be allocated sufficient time to
put together his solution which will verify the genuine records.[62] hence, Yājñavalkya shows
his know-how, while supplying this rule to hurry up the manner of justice for disposal of cases as
early as viable without causing any injustice to both birthday party and giving an possibility to
both celebration to take part therein.

Manu addresses a rigid rule in comparison to that of Yājñavalkya. Manu says that if a defendant
does now not put his solution inside three fortnights then he loses the case.[63] Kauṭilya permits
a term of three or seven days for filing defence but after that being overdue, defendant has to pay
best. The time however can be extended most up to 3 fortnights, that is the longest time limit to
give the answer. If he can't reply even after 3 fortnights then punishment of fine for loss of fit
and compensation to the plaintiff from items belonging to him is imposed.[64]

Yājñavalkya in his regulations of system lays down the regulations describing minute info on the
manner of the accused and witnesses thru which the credibility or veracity of individuals as such
can be judged. The person being complainant or witness, if suggests change from the natural or
ordinary kingdom by using speech, activities of thoughts and bodily movements, is asserted as
duṣṭa, which means depraved or tainted. The signal of modifications can be marked within the
sports along with, if he movements from one united states of america to another which shows
moving his function frequently, licks the nook of his lips, his forehead perspires, his face
adjustments color, his mouth dries up, he speaks hesitatingly, his speech contradicts very often.
furthermore, he does not hold eye contact, he is not speedy and straight in returning answers, and
twists his lips.[65] these characteristics on trade of conducts ought to not be brought about by
worry, and many others., however because of natural outcome. the writer’s aim does no longer
seem to claim those traits of demeanour as conclusive evidence of guilt, if it'd have been so, then
the judges could now not have enjoyed any discretion. In such case, even as seeing those
features, the judges would ought to recollect the guilt as proved and there would now not be any
scope to allow the party to give evidence for the motive of disproving it. The observation of
Aparārka makes this point quite clear that such capabilities have to not be treated as proof of
guilt both of plaintiff or of witnesses. It facilitates to determine where the weight of evidence
lies, which means the celebration displaying those signs is to be tested carefully and to be
requested to prove his innocence.[66]

The Mitākṣarā additionally holds the identical opinion. He has explicitly refused that these are
the indubitable proofs serving as floor of defeat. those propose mere opportunity of the fault at
the part of the celebration worried. The Mitāokṣarā stresses that these signs and symptoms aren't
stated as advantageous marks of the lifestyles of defects, however recommend chance of
existence of any illness, due to the fact the differences between a natural defect and a illness
resulting from unique occasions are difficult to understand. even though a skilful man or woman
succeeds in bringing a difference among the 2, it's going to now not be sufficient to cause defeat
of the party inside the healthy. it's far defined with simile that staring at the signs and symptoms
of drawing close death in a demise guy, the exequial rites could now not be accomplished.
Likewise, although it could be inferred from the symptoms that the birthday party may be
defeated but that would not be sufficient to reason an actual defeat of the birthday celebration.
[67] as a consequence, diverse varieties of facial expressions and bizarre behavior proven
through the events and witnesses before the court of justice must be tested thoroughly, which can
also appear the acceptability or reliability of the testimony given by way of them.

Yājñavalkya specifies three grounds because of which a celebration turns into hīna, i.e. a losing
birthday celebration. He states that person who attempts to substantiate a dubious claim with the
aid of grandiloquent speech without the help of proof, who flies away when price is added in
opposition to him, who does no longer solution some thing on being summoned is considered as
faulty or susceptible birthday party (hīnavādin). Yājñavalkya recommends imposition of
punishment on such hīna.[68]

The Manusmṛti carries a more intricate listing of hīnas viz., one that modifications the case later
regarding what he means to proof earlier, who does no longer abide with the aid of the reality
duly stated with the aid of himself on being puzzled, who uses an flawed area to converse with
the witnesses, who refuses to answer a query properly or leaves the court of justice, who does
now not answer even after ordered to do so, who does not show the allegations made through
him, who does now not know what is the first factor and what's the second one, who claims of
having witnesses but being ordered to supply does no longer produce them.[69] Buhler interprets
the hīna declared by Manu as non-ideal.[70] Manu shows for imposition of punishment either of
corporeal or of satisfactory in keeping with regulation on the plaintiff who does not
communicate. The punishment of defendant for not replying after three fortnights is said to be
lack of his case. Likewise punishment for false denial or false declaration is double the quantity
of the impugned sum.[71] Nārada refers avasannas and hīnas differently.[72] J Jolly observes
that the persons known as hīnas are partly identical with those designed as avasannas.[73]

Nārada announces 5 forms of hīna that are as follows:

one who deviates from the previous announcement (anyavādī),

one that avoids the judicial research (kriyādveṣīn),

one who does not make his look before the courtroom (nopasthāta),
person who does now not give respond (niruttara) and

person who absconds when summoned (āhūtaprapalāyin).

There isn't always any provisions of punishments for avasannas and hīnas inside the
Nāradasmṛti.

The king is recommended to be very attentive and cautious for the duration of the trial and
makes positive that he does not decide a lawsuit unexpectedly. The king should supply justice in
line with the records, after refuting fraud or deception (chala), as even a claim primarily based on
the real country of data is probable to be misplaced in judicial intending, if no longer presented
properly.[74] it is the responsibility of the king to find out the truth in a lawsuit rejecting all of
the circumventions which the parties may also try to adopt in a case for his or her personal gain.
The trial of a fit gives a complicated man or woman in fact for which to come back to a proper
choice has been stated to be tough in view that, the parties to a match act in private hobby. a
party may additionally win over the case with the assist of false declaration or evidences
supplying trick completely and as a end result actual claimant might also fail to show his case.
Nārada refers to the traditional tale of the saint Māndavya, who turned into tried and declared to
be a robber unjustly by way of an injudicious king on the premise of criminal rule presuming
him robber whilst stolen gadgets are discovered along with his belongings.[75] An innocent guy
can be suspected and charged with robbery due to locating the stolen property in his ownership,
on the contrary, the actual robber may additionally get acquaintance of that fee. consequently, it
is vital to stay alert and workout notable care on the a part of the king or judges to discern a
sound choice in felony process. They must attempt cases rationally, differentiating among actual
and fake.

Yājñavalkya within the asādhāraṇavyavahāramātṛokayāprakaraṇa pronounces an crucial rule that

when all of the allegations made in written are denied (by the defendant) and absolutely
everyone of them is proved to be proper than the king have to compel him to offer again or make
amends for entire of the declare. it has been laid down in addition that the king cannot provide
what has now not been alleged inside the authentic plaint.[76] It approach if a celebration
completely denies a claim both noted in the plaint or in the written declaration and afterwards if
the opponent establishes by means of evidence a giant portion of it, then the decide may also skip
a decree towards the denying party for satisfying complete of the declare. The purport of this rule
of intending, consistent with the Mitāokayṣarā, can be illustrated within the following way. let it
be meant that a criticism is instituted in writing through a person in opposition to a person that
such person has taken from him fifteen gold coins, fifty silver cash, and two pieces of garments.
The person denies the ones charges in reality in his respond. If the person complaining, can
prove that the defendant has in his ownership every person of the articles said within the plaint
then he must be directed with the aid of the king to deposit all the rest, or its equivalent identical
aspect or fee. then again, the complainant cannot point out any article exceeding the ones noted
within the authentic plaint after the case is proved. even supposing he does, so declaring that he
has forgotten earlier, the king have to not entertain it.[77]

consequently, it is essential that one ought to draft the pliant carefully and especially to check the
incorporation of all of the claims. fabric allegations and necessary details want to be included
with fact, which must be proved so that it will establish the plaintiff’s proper to alleviation
claimed in the plaint. It seems to intend a strict rule of pleading. Pleading refers to plaint of the
plaintiff and written assertion or reply of defendant.

Magha says,

“Pleadings are statements in writing drawn up and filed through each birthday party to a case,
pointing out what his contention might be at the trial and giving all such info as his opponent
desires to recognise which will prepare his case in answer.”[78]

for that reason, Yājñavalkya’s rule makes it clean that one cannot obtain later what's omitted in
the paint. At present in India, beneath the Civil method Code policies 7-8 of Order 7, it is held
via the ultimate court and other high Courts that the court docket can not grant large remedy to
the plaintiff, than what is claimed via him in the plaint, with out being amended the plaint.[79]

The dictates of the Smṛtis on similar matters are located at variance occasionally. It creates
confusion concerning the applicability of the guideline at the same time as finding out a count.

Yājñavalkya puts forward a rule to address such state of affairs which reads-

smṛtyorvirodhe nyāyastu balavānvyavahārataḥ/

arthaśāstrāttu balavaddharmaśāstramiti sthitiḥ//[80]

It means in the event of mutual battle among two Smṛti texts, the big appleāya will have more
pressure or authority. The Mitākṣarā explains new yorkāya as ideas of fairness, i.e. the ideas of
common sense or reasoning useful in effecting and adjustment of the factors at distinction. new
yorkāya is stated to have marked by means of the guidelines like viṣayavyavasthā,
utsargāpavāda, vikalpa, and so forth., meaning respectively rule of adjustment, i.e. an adjustment
of the numerous topics which assigns or appropriates to every of them its right region, the rule of
widespread and unique, the guideline of alternative, etc. those guidelines may be derived from
usages and practices, which can be historical so followed by means of the elderly people and
examined by using both high quality or poor announcement or settlement and contrariety, etc.
[81]

in this rule, the Dīpakalikā, the Vīramitrodaya and the Aparārka have expressed a comparable
perspectives that of the Mitāokayṣarā.[82] Viśvarūpa presents some other experience of this
passage that new yorkāya is advanced to vyavahāra or new yorkāya supersedes vyavahāra, most
effective and in case of struggle among Smṛti and nyāya, the former is of extra authority.[83]
Jayaswal is of the opinion that Yājñavalkya has constrained this rule to the vyavahāra, which
shows law element proper of the Smṛtis.[84]

consequently, it appears that for the purpose of doing away with the contradiction, when the
textual content of the Smṛtis, applicable to a given case is at difference, equity or reasoning
based totally on the usages of experienced will be successful. normally, it's miles the energy and
duty of the king and judges to decide the cases enforcing the legal guidelines and policies as
prescribed within the Smṛtis. consequently, it's far vital to envision the real which means of the
regulation to use it for this reason. while conflict arises between two or more Smṛtis, then equity,
reasoning, standards of interpretation or production have to be followed to determine the matter
in difficulty. it may help in know-how the perfect sense of a provision of law. In specific, which
one is conformable in a selected subject matter, in step with logical concepts is authoritative.
This rule of Yājñavalkya seems to have resemblance with the doctrine that equity in preference
to bare letter of the law ought to be followed.

on the equal time, Yājñavalkya makes the rule that the authority of the Dharmaśāstra is advanced
to the Arthaśāstra. In case of a struggle between the guidelines of the Dharmaśāstra and the
Arthaśāstra, there may be no scope of reconciliation though rule of equity or reasoning rather
dictates of the Arthaśāstra could be assigned a subordinate role. some examples referred to
through Viśvarūpa and Vijñāneśvara deserve point out here for proper expertise of this rule. it's
miles declared by Viśvarūpa that the distinction between the Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra is
proven with the aid of a number of his predecessors inside the following manner. consistent with
the vyavahāraprakaraṇa of the Arthaśāstra, one does no longer ever incur guilt by way of killing
an ātatāyin (murderer or desperado).

Prāyaśittaprakaraṇa of the Dharmaśāstra says,

“For deliberately slaying a Brāhmaṇa no atonement is ordained”.

for this reason, because of the prevalence of the Dharmaśāstra rule, in killing a Brāhmaṇa
ātatāyin one may additionally incur guilt.[85] but Viśvarūpa does not locate this illustration right.
even though the remark of Vijñāneśvara refers to this situation, he too thinks that this two forms
of texts aren't in reference to one subject and so comparison of position that is advanced or
inferior does no longer arise. It has given an example of its personal.

An Arthaśāstra text runs for this reason -

“As acquisition of a friend is superior to the purchase of gold or land, so one should endeavour to
accumulate it.”

there is a textual content within the Dharmaśāstra, which says that being without anger and
avarice one have to appearance after the proceedings. sometimes, these texts struggle with each
different. whilst finding out a lawsuit of fourfold nature, it can arise that securing success to 1
birthday party could assist in gaining buddy but ends in violation of ideas of the Dharmaśāstra. at
the same time as performing according to the Dharmaśāstra, if fulfillment is secured to different
celebration, then loss of friend will end result from it. In one of these state of affairs, the rule of
thumb of the Dharmaśāstra is to be accompanied as opposed to the Arthaśāstra as the former has
greater force than the latter.[86]

Nārada also accepts that during matters of inconsistency among the Dharmaśāstra and the
Arthaśāstra, one should act as said with the aid of the Dharmaśāstra and discard what's stated by
means of the Arthaśāstra. whilst the texts of the Dharmaśāstra contradict, the rule of thumb is
that, a technique based on reasoning must be adopted.[87] Manu ordains a one-of-a-kind rule that
is confined to Śruti handiest. It says that, if there's clash among sacred texts (Śruti), then each
are held to be law (dharma), due to the fact each are properly suggested via the smart as law.[88]
This view appears to be someway illogical.

The 0.33 stage of criminal technique, proclaimed by Yājñavalkya, is created from adducing
evidence to establish the problem in dispute. it's far of splendid importance as in the process of
turning in justice. The courtroom of justice has to examine the truthfulness of the assertions
made by way of the events. proof or the means of proof governs the place of assertions and
ascertainment of its truthfulness. regulation of proof is applicable in finding out upon the
disputed issues or records in achieving to a end. Yājñavalkya, anticipating it, directs even as
discussing the regulations of process that writing or file (likhita), possession (bhukti) and
witnesses (sāokayṣin) are the evidences (pramāṇa). in the absence of anybody of those, ordeal or
divine check (divya) is stated to be any other evidence.[89]

Yājñavalkya has no longer immediately given any definition of pramāṇa or evidence, however
his description on one of the policies of procedure itself is going very close to a definition at the
same time as he says that the plaintiff have to write down with out losing time, as quickly as
feasible, the ones evidences via which the matter in dispute is to be set up. Now right here, the
writer mentions what the ones evidences are. Commenting in this rule, the Mitāokṣarā in addition
states that evidence may be defined as that through which a element is proved, measured or
accurate expertise can be collected and discriminated. Evidences may be widely divided into two
categories, viz. human and divine. Likhita, bhukti and sākṣin are declared because the threefold
man or woman of human proof.[90] in this rule, Yājñavalkya rather attaches the relative fee
meaning power or weak point to human and divine proof. This very textual content expressly
recommends that ordeals or divine evidences are to be resorted as mode of evidence most
effective when none of the human evidences are viable or available. for this reason, according to
Yājñavalkya, divine evidences are having the least evidentiary cost among all different method
of evidence.

The Mitāokṣarā makes it clear that if one birthday party to a lawsuit refers to anyone of the
document, possession or witnesses and the alternative celebration places forward ordeals, in this
type of case, human proof ought to most effective be relied upon and now not ordeals. moreover,
while human proof is adduced or availed by using one birthday celebration which meets simplest
sizable portion of the allegations made inside the plaint, there too human proof must be resorted
to in preference to ordeals though it is able to have hooked up the complete claim. this is defined
with the help of an example. assume, in a case the plaintiff complains towards a defendant that
he has no longer paid lower back a mortgage of Rupees 100 at such hobby taken from him. The
defendant gives witnesses to set up the recognition of the loan but nothing to show the price of
hobby. even though plaintiff offers ordeal to prove the whole of the plaint, it will now not be
everyday in keeping with this rule of technique.[91] It indicates the recognition of the writer
approximately the right application of justice through limiting the usage of the ordeals.

it's been stated by Yājñavalkya that the defeat or victory of a celebration depends on the energy
of the evidences adduced by that celebration. There are instances wherein each plaintiff and
defendant may additionally put forward evidences of equal weightage and are genuine similarly.
Then, it turns into hard to determine which one ought to get desire over the other. Yājñavalkya
now gives the rule of thumb to be followed in such instances to recognise the energy of diverse
proofs resorted with the aid of plaintiff and defendant, which in flip will decide the case or lead
to a choice. In all court cases relating to assets or financial transactions, proof installed for a later
transaction is of more have an effect on in finding out the case.[92] It indicates while evidences
for both the parties have been proved, within the civil instances like debt, and so on., the birthday
celebration setting up the latter transaction, wins the case. as an example, if the plaintiff claims a
debt by means of proving receipt and latter the defendant refutes its existence by using
repayment, then both having proved with the help of right evidences, the evidences adduced with
the aid of defendant for latter transaction has force and the case might be determined in his
favour. An exception to this rule is provided that in a case of mortgage, present and buy or sale,
proof in assist of the prior claim is stronger.[93] consequently, the party who has proved a
previous transaction succeeds in the sort of case. as a consequence, if someone gives his piece of
land on loan to one first and on the other hand mortgages to another, in such a case, the first one
is entitled to the mortgaged assets and no longer the latter.

Yājñavalkya’s rule of manner contemplates the rule of thumb regarding order of examination of
witnesses and moving of burden of proof. This rule isn't supposed for any unique kind of
instances but for the trial of all sorts of cases in wellknown. whilst there are witnesses to be had
for each sides, the witnesses of the pūrvavādin are to be taken up first. The declare of him being
invalidated, the flip comes subsequent to the witnesses of the uttaravādin.[94] The commentators
have interpreted this rule in distinctive sense relying upon the phrase pūrvavādin and
uttaravādin. according to the Mitāokṣarā, the time period pūrvavādin does no longer denote him
who first makes a grievance, but someone claiming priority consisting of both he has got it by
using present, or he has loved it at an in advance date.[98] He explains that, while each the
parties have witnesses to provide, then the witnesses for the party claiming first in position to
revel in the challenge-rely of dispute, need to be examined first. If that birthday party’s claim
loses floor or significance, or becomes weak because of the admission of defendant
approximately the previous nation of things, however giving a next plea to invalidate the
previous country of factors then the witnesses for different aspect need to be tested. maximum of
the commentaries just like the Dīpakalikā, the Vīramitrodaya and the Aparārka, and so on. keep a
opposite view to that of the Mitāokṣarā. They accepts that a pūrvavādin is he who documents the
plaint or makes the complaint first, that means the plaintiff.[99] consequently, if witnesses of
both the events are present, witnesses from the plaintiff’s side need to be admitted, tested or
general. The allegation of the plaintiff being reproached, the witnesses in support of the
defendant need to be tested.

Yājñavalkya has dealt with the regulation on evidence regarding the document, witness and
ordeal as separate chapters and has now not mentioned in the chapter containing guidelines of
process. it is worth mentioning that possession is defined within the
asādhāraṇavyavahāramātṛokayāprakaraṇa. as a consequence, the writer may have supposed to
make it more part of policies of manner than regulation. He appears to recall it not as a
substantial regulation, but a right created by way of the process of evidence. The Mitākṣarā
establishes with purpose the evidentiary price of possession, or how can it be a style of proof.
possession can continuously and successfully measure the probative price of the sale and such
different transactions on gratifying positive distinct conditions. those are set up as the basis of
possession, which help to attract an inference, or when an instantaneous inference can't be
drawn, a end may be drawn by way of implication. for this reason, possession may form a part of
either an inference (anumāna) or an implication (arthāpatti), and as a result it is a superb way of
evidence.[95] possession as evidence is useful to sure unique cases and instances.

The consequences of ownership as proof over certain types of property are emphasised via
Yājñavalkya. The proper of a person over land is lost in two decades while he does now not raise
any protest even after seeing it being loved by way of some other character for that time period
and it is limited to 10 years to date it relates to monetary or other movable assets.[96] Aparārka
supports the literal meaning of this rule that on pleasant the unique conditions, the unique owner
loses the possession over immovable properties on the end of twenty years of damaging
possession with the aid of wrongful possessor and lack of possession over movable property
occurs on ten years’ destructive ownership.[97] A misplaced name is presumed on the possessor,
thus ownership becomes proof. right here, it is inferred that the individual having possession is in
possession, and as a consequence, ownership is evidence. many of the extant commentators,
Viśvarūpa explains it first within the feel of current concept of regulation that one ought to live
alert to one’s proper. He states that, negligence may be a cause for lack of belongings. An
proprietor should no longer forget about or keep silence after it involves his note that a stranger
has been taking ownership of it wrongfully. it can suggest the waiver of his proper and consent to
the act of wrongful possessor. therefore, it may reason lack of the match.[100]
The Mitāokayṣarā holds a distinct view. After going through an complex discussion, it draws the
realization that, here the loss intended to be indicated is not of the ownership, nor of the proper
of a in shape at law, but that of the income of the land, in addition to of the wealth. The
proprietor, even if at regulation, gets again the land after 20 years possession by using a stranger
with none protest, having notice of it, then he has no proper to claim for the income due to his
personal fault of non-protest and of this newsletter. It follows that he can at ease the proper to
say profit in case of a possession with out be aware, that's said for that reason: paśyato’bruvato
bhūmerhānirviṃśativārṣikī/ The passage abruvatoḥ, and so forth., endorse that during evaluation
of possession with word but without protest additionally he may additionally get a proper to
observe proceeds earlier than 20 years.[101]

Manu holds that ten years of uninterrupted possession of immovable belongings by means of
every other man or woman before the eyes of the proprietor, not being an fool or a minor, the
proper of restoration at regulation is loss to him via law and the damaging possessor will be
entitled to keep that assets.[102] comparable view is expressed in two verses of the Nāradasmṛti
also.[103]

In yet every other context, he states:

“Loss to the proprietor in the event that they have loved earlier than him for twenty years.”

He has now not made the point clear wherein circumstances those are applicable. So, these
intervals, stated by using him, appear to be contradictory. Manu too has now not suggested
enormously. it is handiest in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti, in which the point is laid down unmistakably
with situations.

In India, at present times, the limitation Act prescribes the time restriction to be twelve years
whilst the ownership of the defendant will become unfavorable to the plaintiff for possession of
immovable property or any interest therein based totally on title.[104] hence, Yājñavalkya, like
an professional jurist, has already prescribed separate difficulty duration of movable and
immovable property for negative possession.
An exception to this rule is furnished within the straight away succeeding verse.[105] This rule is
relevant as a unique rule to the above-cited standard rule of possession. This rule appears to were
integrated to prevent the misuse of the guidelines of possession which may additionally result in
miscarriage of justice. It states explicitly the cases, wherein the rule of thumb of regulation does
not occur although possession with information, but without protest, continues for two decades
in land, and many others., and for ten years in other immovable assets.

those unique instances, which might be exempted from those boundaries, are as follows:

Mortgaged or pledged articles or properties (ādhi),

Boundary disputes (sīmā),

An open deposit, i.e. wealth deposited in accept as true with exhibiting the quality and quantity
(upanikṣepa),

homes of mentally retarded or idiot (jaḍa),

properties of teenybopper (bāla),

A sealed deposit, i.e. kept in safe custody in any other’s hand with out mentioning its contents
(upanidhi),

property of the king,

belongings of female and

property belonging to Brāhmaṇa.

In these instances of the pledge etc., there exist proper and affordable grounds, which provide an
explanation for the postpone or negligence. As such, any sort of default of the celebration does
not stand up. In contemporary prison system of India, there are provisions beneath the Indian
difficulty Act to defend the interest of a number of the sections along with minor, humans of
unsound thoughts, mortgagor and so on.[106] Yājñavalkya protects the proper and interest of the
proprietors of nine kinds of residences from dropping their identify.[107] besides, the writer
advances a rule implementing unique penalty in such cases to the possessor enjoying forcefully
for a long time depriving the rightful owner. He should be pressured to repair the major amount
of the challenge of dispute to the owner. An identical amount or an quantity consistent with his
ability is imposed on him as best or penalty, which he has to pay to the king.[108]
Yājñavalkya proceeds to describe towards the relation between name and ownership. He
indicates the relative energy of ownership to form an proof in this way–

“Āgama is superior to ownership, however now not to hereditary possession; even āgama isn't a
sturdy declare in the absence of possession”.[109]

in step with Viśvarūpa, āgama way written file.[110] Vijñāneśvara defines it because the
foundation or source of possession which includes present, buy, and so on., or that means
simplest title.[111] inside the Vīramitrodaya, the derivative sense of āgama is given as via which
turns into one’s own, i.e. foundation of name inclusive of sale, attractiveness of a present etc.
[112] Aparārka by using the term āgama denotes that which bestows the possession, of sale, gift,
and so on.[113] thus, the name originating out of buy, gift, etc., is greater powerful than
possession. again, identify or deed of ownership isn't advanced to the possession, which has
descended or exceeded down from the road of ancestors persisted from the beyond three
generations, along with the daddy and the relaxation. Even a title has no strength or force if
there's no possession at the least for a brief while. it's miles achieved by using the Mitāokṣarā
that possession is right evidence of ownership whilst it's far observed by using the subsequent
five characteristics, i.e. it should be backed by means of name, long persisted, without any
interruptions or intervention; free from protest and with note to the opponent.[114] This rule
asserts that both possession and title lend support to every different and are inter dependent on
every other to be an evidence of greater pressure. possession, independent of name is powerful
whilst it comes down from previous line of ancestors. it's miles stated to be a subject of
smārtakāl. a.. it could be became as ‘prison reminiscence’, suggesting a time restriction beyond
which it is meant to be tough to show from reminiscence, i.e. immemorial. at the same time as
announcing, ‘identify is superior to ownership’ indicates ownership within reminiscence.
consequently, in case of ownership within reminiscence attains evidentiary fee, if it's miles
assisted through expertise of name. on the other hand, immemorial possession can itself be an
proof with out depending on title or deed of ownership. In such cases, life of identify is
presumed from possession.[115] identify with possession is demonstrated as effective evidence
than mere name. consequently, to make a title perfect, ownership must co-exist even if it's miles
for a shorter length, in any other case it becomes susceptible. thus, it indicates that possession
although not always necessary for effecting a legitimate transfer of possession, but to provide
weightage to name as evidence, possession is insisted upon.

next, Yājñavalkya sets forth the guideline that the man who has made the acquisition of a
identify, if any healthy is brought in opposition to him, then he should prove the supply of name.
however, in case of son or grandson, possession has greater force.[116] They need no longer
show the beginning of the title passed down in a successive line of ancestors. of their case, no
matter another mode of evidence, ownership is sufficient to establish the claim. Their identify
might be exposed with the aid of ownership. as a consequence, ownership is the evidence of a
criminal name, which has exceeded from the father to son by way of the right of inheritance. The
Mitākṣarā similarly makes it clean that this rule is likewise indicative that the first acquirer
failing to prove his title is vulnerable to be fined for unlawfully usurping ownership but that isn't
always applicable to son and grandson. They would be fined if they can't set up hereditary
ownership and will no longer be capable of keep the assets.[117] it's far immediately stated by
using Nārada that possession can create criminal identify in case of assets legitimately inherited
from father.[118] Nārada’s opinion helps the rule of Yājñavalkya on this factor.

Yājñavalkya gives an exception to the above-cited rule of possession that in a match brought
towards son and grandson referring to assets received from father or line of ancestors as
inheritance, ownership has the force to be a legitimate manner of evidence of his title. The
trespasser or dishonest humans might also misinform the authentic proprietor with the help of
this principle. it's far observed through Mitramiśra that strict adherence to this principle of the
text may cause give decision in favour of an fraudulent movement. Even every so often within a
totally brief span of time such as six months handiest, ownership can be taken over through three
generations.[119] In such conditions, actual aim of that rule could be defeated. Being aware of
these information so as to shield the interest of true claimant, the writer introduces the exception
in order that possession cannot be used as a weapon to legalise an unlawful identify. He says if a
healthy is filed in opposition to someone (the primary owner), who occurs to die before in shape
is determined without proving his name or possession, then his son or criminal successor must
recover it with the aid of proving the lawful identify as a lot as it would were necessary in case of
the deceased. right here ownership with out title can not be resorted to via successors as a valid
proof or proof of possession.[120] The Nāradasmṛti has a text giving the equal import of
Yājñavalkya. It proclaims if a litigant dies during the pendency of the fit instituted towards him
regarding property enjoyed by using him, the son is needed to show the title considering the fact
that mere ownership will not establish the declare or in any other case possession is not taken
into consideration valid.[121]

Yājñavalkya tactfully prescribes the policies of system to modify nice and negative elements of
ownership as a method of proof. He has virtually expounded beneath what condition, ownership
inherits decisive strength and when it does now not.

any other very important rule furnished via Yājñavalkya corresponds to the modern rule of
overview. below the cutting-edge judicial device, evaluation or revision is the procedural
provision connecting to both criminal and civil regulation. through those tactics, every courtroom
or tribunal can correct an accidental or negligent error, which arises within the selections due to
procedural disorder or via misrepresentation or fraud of a party to the intending which need to be
corrected to save you the abuse of manner of court docket. the general rule of procedure,
advocated with the aid of Yājñavalkya, is that a match decided by way of an inferior tribunal
may be re-attempted by the superior one. In such manner, there seems to be none to review the
case determined with the aid of the best one, i.e. the king. He has stated instances wherein even a
match determined by means of the excellent authority can be reopened for evaluation or
reconsideration, and then, the previous decision may be set apart or reversed. the first floor is,
when such decisions are obtained through fraud or force. next ground may be recognized as
incompetency (of the litigant or the witnesses) being a lady or the like. other grounds may
consist of trials carried out all through tile nights, in closed doorways, outside the village, or with
the enemies.[122] these are the exceptions to the finality of the judgement of the court docket of
justice or the king’s courtroom.

moreover, Yājñavalkya refers a few lawsuits as non-maintainable. those include complaints

instituted via a drunkard, or intoxicated character; an insane man or woman; a disabled
individual; one addicted to playing; a boy of soft age; one underneath the impact of worry, etc.,
and that lodged with the aid of someone with none private reference to the matter of dispute.
[123]

The closing 4 verses of the asādhāraṇavyavahāramātṛokayāprakaraṇa are devoted to the

guidelines which show how the king need to address the property, recovered after it being lost,
hidden treasure or those recovered from thieves and robbers. while a lost treasured article is
recovered and brought earlier than the king, it is his obligation to restore it to the proprietor. To
discover the real proprietor, Yājñavalkya places ahead the system that the claimant need to be
requested to set up his claim that it belongs to him by way of evidence. If he succeeds in figuring
out it through declaring one of a kind marks, fine, amount, form and the like, then the king must
provide it to him. To save you the untruthful claimants, Yājñavalkya lays down any other rule.
He who presses his declare however fails to substantiate or set up with proper identification
marks and so on., then he have to be made to pay a satisfactory identical to the quantity of the
item as penalty for putting in a false claim.[124] After that, guidelines concerning treasure of
unknown possession discovered hidden, additionally referred to as treasure trove (nidhi), are laid
down.[125] If the treasure trove is discovered by using the king, then half of of it is to be given
to the Brāhmaṇas, when a found out Brāhmaṇa comes via it, he can hold the entire nidhi. some
other besides them having found the treasure trove, the king must take one 6th of that treasure
trove. although this which means is apparent within the textual content of Yājñavalkya, yet in
step with the Mitākṣarā, the king need to give one 6th of it to the finder and should maintain
himself the final treasure trove.[126] He further makes provision to punish the finder who
without informing the king of its acquisition tries to misappropriate the entire nidhi.

From the above dialogue, it could be deduced that Yājñavalkya intends to set up vyavahāra as a
separate entity of dharma, containing what can be referred to as secular or positive law in
contemporary sense. For that motive, the name of the chapter referred to as Vyavahārādhyāya
seems to be suitable, from the contents, on account that, a judicial procedure containing the
elements the plaint, the answer, the doubt, reasons, deductions, the evidences, the choices, and
many others., along with its padas, i.e. subjects or titles of law are being set accessible in.
moreover, the vyavahāramātṛokā delineated within the Vyavahārādhyāya of the
Yājñavalkyasmṛti marks a excessive development of law of procedure, which is important for
felony history of India and bears affinity to present day law of technique.

FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES:

[1]:
Kane, P.V. and Patwardhan, S.G. (Edited and trans.), Op.cit., page232
[2]:
tatra prathama evādhyāye vyavahārasya vidhiḥ/ Aparārka on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.1
[3]:
Vide, Sastri, T.G. (Edited), Yajñavalkyasmṛti with the comm. of Viśvarūpa,
[4]:
Vide, Panśīkar, W.L.S. (Edited), Yajñavalkyasmṛti with the comm. of
Vijñāneśvara, Vyavahārādhyāya
[5]:
Vide, Apte, H. N. (Edited), Yajñavalkyasmṛti with the comm. of Aparārka,

[6]:
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.1-36
[7]:
cf., Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
[8]:
cf., The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
[9]:
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.5
[10]:
notpādayetsvayaṃ kāryaṃ rājā nāpyasya pūruṣaḥ// na ca prāpitamanyena grasetārthaṃ
kathaṃcan// Manusmṛti,8.43
[11]:
yo na bhrātā na ca pitā na putro na niyogakṛt/ padārthavādī daṇḍyaḥ syād vyavahāre’pi
vibruvan// Nāradasmṛti, 2.23
[12]:
catuṣpādvyavahāro’yam vivādeṣūpadarśitaḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.6-8
[13]:
tatra pratyarthino’grato lekhyaṃ iti bhāṣāpādaḥ prathamaḥ/ śrutārthasyottaraṃ
lekhyamityuttarapādo dvitīyaḥ/tato’rthi lekhayetsadya iti kriyāpādastṛtīyaḥ/ tatsiddhau
siddhimāpnotīti sādhyasiddhipādaśaturthaḥ/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.38
[14]:
pratijñā, uttaraṃ, sādhanaṃ, nirṇayaścetyevaṃ catuṣpāt/… tasmāt pratijñākrameṇaiva
vivādakriyetyabhiprāyaḥ/ Bālakrīḍā , Ibid., 2.8
[15]:
atra ca siddhiśabdena sabhyānāmarthipratyarthiviṣayajayaparājayāvadhāraṇopāyabhūtaṃ
pramāṇamasyedaṃ śāstrataḥ prāpnotīti vicārakāṇāṃ paramarśaḥ pratyākalitādiśabdavācya
ucyate, siddhiphalatvāt/ Aparārka, Ibid., 2.8
[16]:
pūrvapakṣaścottaraṃ ca pratyākalitameva ca/ kriyāpādaśca tenāyaṃ catuṣpātsamudāhṛtaḥ//
Kātyāyana quoted by Aparārka, Ibid., 2.8
[17]:
… pratyākalitasya… vyavahartuḥ saṃbandhābhāvācca na vyavahārapādatvamiti
sthitam/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.8
[18]:
saṃpratipattyuttare tu sādhanā nirdeśābhāṣārthasyāsādhyatvācca na sādhyasiddhilakṣaṇaḥ
pādo’stīti dvipāttvameva/ Ibid.
[19]:
tato’rthi lekhayetsadya iti mithyottaraviṣayam/ uttarāntare tu pratyarthīn eva pramāṇam/
Aparārka, Ibid., 2.8
[20]:
pūrvapakṣaḥ smṛtaḥ pādo dvitīyastūttarastathā/ kriyāpādastathā vācyaścaturtho nirṇayastathā//
Bṛhaspati quoted by Aparārka, Ibid., 2.8
[21]:
dharmaśca vyavahāraśca caritraṃ rājaśāsanam/ catuṣpād vyavahāro’yamuttaraḥ purvabādhakaḥ//
tatra satye sthito dharmo vyavahārastu sākṣiṣu/ caritraṃ pustakaraṇe rājājñāyāṃ tu śāsanam//
Nāradasmṛti 1.10-11
[22]:
nanu-pratijñottarapramāṇanirṇayānāṃ vyavahārapadatvaṃ na dharmādīnāmiti… ucyate-
nirṇayapādo dharmādyanusārena caturvidhaḥ/ tatra yadanusāreṇa yo nirṇayaḥ sa tacchabdena
nirdiśyate/ Smṛticandrikā, Vyavahārakāṇḍa 1,page21
[23]:
dharmena vyavahāreṇa caritreṇa nṛpājñayā/ catuṣprakāro’bhihitassandigdhe’rthe vinirṇayaḥ//
Bṛhaspati quoted on Smṛticandrikā, Vyavahārakāṇḍa 1,page21
[24]:
pratyarthino’grato lekhyaṃ yathāveditamarthinā/ samāmāsatadardhāharnāmajātyādicihnitam//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.6
[25]:
arthyate ityarthaḥ sādhyaḥ so’syāstītyarthi tatpratipakṣaḥ pratyarthi…/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[26]:
yathoktam-arthavaddharmasaṃyuktaṃ…/…yadāvedayate rājñe taddhāṣetyabhidhayite//iti/
bhāṣā, pratijñā, pakṣa iti nāthāntaram/ Ibid.
[27]:
āvedanasamaye karyamātraṃ likhitaṃ pratyarthino’grataḥ samāmāsādibiśiṣtaṃ likhyata iti
biśeṣaḥ/ Ibid.
[28]:
yathā yena prakāreṇa purvamāvedanakāle āveditaṃ tathā/ na punaranyathā/ anyathāvāditvena
vyavahārasya bhangaprasangāt/ Ibid.
[29]:
pūrvaṃ ca bhūmāvālikhya pratijñāṃ śodhayitvā paścāt patrāropaṇaṃ
kāryam/ Bālakrīḍā onYS.,2.6
[30]:
śodhanaṃ ca yāvaduttaradarśanaṃ kartavyaṃ nātaḥ param/ anavasthāprasaṅgāt/ Mitākṣarā,
Ibid., 2.6
[31]:
saṃvatsaramāsapakṣatithivāradinā-arthipratyarthināmbrāhmaṇajātyādicihnitam/ ādiśabdena
dravyatatsaṃkhyāsthānavelākṣamāliṅgādīni gṛhānte/ Ibid.
[32]:
Takwani, C.K., Civil Procedure, page218
[33]:
yeṣāṃ madhye yāni…nānyeva lekhyāni/na sarvā ṇi prayojanābhāvāt/ Aparārka, Ibid.,2.6
[34]:
evaṃ pakṣalakṣane sthite pakṣalakṣaṇarahitānāṃ pakṣavadavabhāsamānānāṃ pakṣābhāṣatvaṃ
siddhameveti yogīśvareṇa na pṛthakpakṣābhāṣā uktaḥ/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.,2.6
[35]:
Swain, B.K., Op.cit., page52
[36]:
aprasiddhaṃ nirābādhaṃ nirarthaṃ niṣprayojanaṃ/ asādhyaṃ vā viruddhaṃ vā pakṣābhāsaṃ
vivarjayet// iti quoted by Mitākṣarā and Aparārka on Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.6
[37]:
Nāradasmṛti, 2.8-14
[38]:
śrutārthasyottaraṃ lekhyaṃ pūrvāvedakasaṃnidhau/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.7
[39]:
pakṣasya vyāpakaṃ sāramasṃdigdhamanākulan/ avyākhyāmyamilyetaduttaraṃ tadvido
viduḥ//iti quoted by Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[40]:
tacca caturvidham-saṃpratipattirmithyā…cāyaṃ vyavahāramārgeṇa parājita iti// Mitākṣarā on
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.7
[41]:
tato’rthī lekhayetsadyaḥ pratijñātārthasādhanam// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.7
[42]:
arthī pratijñātārthasādhanaṃ lekhayediti vadatā yasya sādhanaṃ lekhayediti vadatā yasya
sādhyamasti sa pratijñātārthasādhanaṃ lekhayedityuktaṃ… vyavahāraḥ parisamāpyata iti
gamyate/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[43]:
tatsiddhau siddhimāpnoti viparītamato’nyathā/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.8
[44]:
abhiyogamanistīrya nainaṃ pratyabhiyojayet/ abhiyuktaṃ ca nyāyena noktaṃ viprakṛtiṃ nayet//
Ibid.,2.9
[45]:
Vide, Kane, P.V. and Patwardhan, S.G. (ed.and trans.), Op.cit., page235, n.46
[46]:
anyenābhiyuktamanistīrṇābhiryogamanyo’rthi nābhi yojayet/kiṃca/ uktamāvedanasamaye
yaduktṃ tadviprakṛtiṃ viruddhabhāvaṃ na nayenna prāpayet/…nanu–‘prtyarthino’grato
lekhyaṃ yathāveditamarthinā’ ityatraivedamuktaṃ kimarthaṃ punarusyate noktaṃ viprakṛtiṃ
nayediti/…tatra vastvantaragamanaṃ niṣiddhamiha tu padāntaragamanaṃ niṣiddhyata iti na
paunaruktyam// Mitākṣarā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.9
[47]:
yadyapi pratyavaskandanaṃ pratyabhiyogarūpaṃ tathāpi svāparādhaparihārātmakatvānnāsya
pratiṣedhaviṣayatvam/ Ibid.,
[48]:
kuryātpratyabhiyogaṃ ca kalahe sāhaseṣu ca/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.10
[49]:
nātra yugapadvyavahārāya pratyabhiyogopadeśaḥ apitu nyūnadaṇḍaprāptaye
adhikadaṇḍanibṛttaye vā/… kalahādau pratyabhiyogo’rthavānṛṇādānādiṣu
tu nirarthaka eva/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.10
[50]:
abhiyukto na pratyabhiyuñjīta anyatra kalahasāhasasārthasamavāyebhyaḥ/ na
cābhiyukte’bhiyogo’sti/ Arthaśāstra,3.1.25-26
[51]:
Nāradasmṛti, 1.55
[52]:
ubhayoḥ pratibhūrgrāhyaḥ samarthaḥ kārkyanirṇaye// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.10
[53]:
tasyāsaṃbhave’rthipratyarthino rakṣane puruṣā niyoktavyāḥ/ tebhyaśca
tābhyāṃ pratidinaṃ vetanaṃ deyam/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.10
[54]:
nihnave bhāvito dadyāddhanaṃ rājñeca tatsamam/ mithyābhiyogī dviguṇamabhiyogāddhanaṃ
vahet/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.11
[55]:
sapaṇaścedvivādaḥ syāditi vadata paṇarahito’pi vivādo darśita iti/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.18
[56]:
sapaṇaścedvivādaḥ syāttatra hīnaṃ tu dāpayet/ daṇḍaṃ ca sapaṇaṃ caiva dhanine dharnameva
cu// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.18
[57]:
yatra punarekaḥ kopā… anyastu parājito daṇḍaṃ dāpyaḥ na paṇam/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[58]:
Nāradasmṛti, 1.4-5
[59]:
sāhasasteyapāruṣyagobhisāpātyaye striyām/ vivādayetsadya eva kālo’nyatrecchyā smṛtaḥ//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.12
[60]:
Nāradasmṛti, 1.45
[61]:
śvo lekhaṃ vā sa labhet tryahaṃ saptāhameva ca/ artho tṛtīyapāde
tu yuktaṃ sadyo dhruvaṃ jayī// Ibid., 2.3
[62]:
Ibid.,1.44
[63]:
Manusmṛti,8.58
[64]:
Arthaśāstra, 3.1.29-31
[65]:
deśāddeśāddeśāntaraṃ yāti sṛkkiṇī parileḍhi ca/ lalāṭaṃ svidyate sāsya mukhaṃ vaivarṇyameti ca//
pariśuṣyatskhaladvākyo viruddhaṃ bahu bhāṣate/ vākcakṣuḥ pūjayati no tathoṣṭhau
nirbhujatyapi// svabhāvādvikṛtiṃ gacchenmanovākkāyakarmabhiḥ/ abhiyoge ca sākṣe vākṣe vā
duṣṭḥ sa parikīrtitaḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.13-15
[66]:
tasmānnaitāni duṣtatāyāṃ pramāṇāni kiṃtu vādiprativādinormabhye kaḥ pramāṇaṃ karotviti
jijñāsāyām/ Aparārka, Ibid.
[67]:
etacca doṣasaṃbhāvanāmātramucyate na doṣaniścayāya/… evamasya parājayo bhaviṣyatīti
liṅgādavagate’pi na parājayanimittakāryaprasangaḥ/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid.
[68]:
saṃdigdhārthaṃ svatantro yaḥ sādhayadyaśca niṣpatet/ na cāhūto vadetkiṃciddhīno daṇḍyaśca
sa smṛtaḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.16
[69]:
Manusmṛti, 8.54-57
[70]:
Max Muller, F.(Edited), The Sacred Books of The East, Volume25, page264.
[71]:
Manusmṛti,8.58-69
[72]:
Nāradasmṛti, 2.32-33
[73]:
Max Muller F. (Edited), Op.cit, Volume33, page32, Foot Note33
[74]:
chalaṃ nirasya bhūtena vyavahārān nayennṛpaḥ/ bhūtamapyanupanyastaṃ hīyate vyavahārataḥ//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.19
[75]:
Nāradasmṛti, 1.41-42
[76]:
nihnute likhitaṃ naikamekadeśe vibhāvitaḥ/ dāpyaḥ sarvaṃ nṛpeṇārthaṃ na
grāhyastvaniveditaḥ// Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.20
[77]:
naikamanekaṃ suvarṇarajatavasttrādi/ likhitamabhiyuktamarthinā pratyarthi yadi sarvameva
nihnute’pajānīte tadārthinaikadeśe hiraṇye sākṣyādibhiḥ pratyarthī bhābito’ngīkāritaḥ sarvaṃ
rajatādyarthaṃ pūrvalikhitaṃ dāpyo’rthine nṛpeṇa/ nagrāhyastvaniveditaḥ bhāṣākāle aniveditaḥ
taścādarthinā pūrvaṃ mayā vismṛta iti nivedyamāno na grāhyo na dāpayitasvyo
nṛpeṇa/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.20
[78]:
Takwani,C.K., Op.cit, page182
[79]:
Ibid., page 223-224
[80]:
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.21
[81]:
yatra smṛtyoḥ parasparato virodhastara virodhaparihārāya
viṣayavyavasthāpanādāvutsargāpvādādilakṣaṇonyāyobalavānsamarthaḥ/ …
vyavahārādvṛddhavyavahārādanvayanvayavyatirekalakṣaṇādavagamyate/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[82]:
Vide, Dīpakalikā, Vīramitrodaya and Aparārka on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.21
[83]:
smṛtervirodhe nyāyastu balavān/ kasmād vyavahārataḥ/…athavā smṛtinyāyavirodhe smṛtireva
jyāyasī na tu nyāyaḥ/ Bālakrīḍā, Ibid., 2.21
[84]:
Jayaswal, K.P., Op.cit., page68
[85]:
yathārthaśāstre vyavahāraprakaraṇe uktaṃ-‘nātatāyeivadhe doṣo hanturbhavati kaścan’ iti/
punardharmaśāstre prāyaścittaprakaraṇe ‘kamatā brāhmaṇavadhe niṣkṛtirna vidhīyata’ it/tatra
dharmaśāstrabalīyastvādātatāyīvadhe doṣaprasaṅga iti/ Bālakrīḍā on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.21
[86]:
ucyate-‘hiraṇyabhūmilābhebhyo mitralabdhirvarā yataḥ/… tatrārthaśāstrāddharmaśāstraṃ
balavat/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid., 2.21
[87]:
Nāradasmṛti, 1. 39-40
[88]:
śrutidvaidhaṃ tu yatra syāttatra dharmāvubhau smṛtau// ubhāvapi hi tau dharmau samyaguktau
manīṣibhiḥ Manusmṛti, 2.14
[89]:
pramāṇaṃ liahitaṃ bhuktiḥ sākṣiṇaśceti kīrtitam/ eṣāmanyatamābhāve divyānyatamamucyate//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.22
[90]:
pramīyate paricchidyate’neneti pramāṇam/ tañca dvividhaṃ mānuṣaṃ daivikaṃ ceti/ tatra
mānuṣaṃ trividhaṃ likhitaṃ bhuktiḥ sākṣiṇaśceti kīrtitaṃ maharṣibhiḥ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[91]:
Mitākṣarā and Aparārka , Ibid.
[92]:
sarveṣvarthavivādeṣu balavayuttarā krīyā/ Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.23
[93]:
ādhau pratigrahe krīte pūrvā tu balavattarā// Ibid.
[94]:
sākṣiṣūbhayataḥ satsu sākṣiṇaḥ pūrvavādinaḥ/ pūrvapakṣe’adharībhute bhavantyuttaravādinaḥ//
Ibid.,2.17
[95]:
bhuktirapi kaiścidviśeṣaṇairyuktā
svatvahetubhūtakriyādikamavyabhicārādanumāpayantyanupapadyamānā vā
kalpayantītyanumāne’rthāpattau cāntarbhavatīti pramāṇameva/ Mitākṣarā on 2.22
[96]:
paśyato’bruvato bhūmerhānirviṃśativārṣikī/ pareṇa bhujyamānāyā dhanasya daśavārṣikī//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.24
[97]:
ādhyādivyatiriktāyā bhumeḥ pareṇa pratyarthinā viṃśativarṣāṇi yāvadbhujyamānāyā arthinaḥ
paśyata imāṃ bhūmimeṣa bhuṅkta iti
pratyakṣamupalabhamānasyābruvato’nakṣipato hāniḥ svasvāmisaṃbandhābhāvo bhavati/ evaṃ
bhūvyatiriktasya dhanasya daśa varṣāṇi bhujyamānasya hāniḥ/ evaṃvidhā hi bhuktistuṣṇīṃ
bhutasya paśyataḥ svāmitve sati na ghaṭate/ kiṃtu bhoktureva svāmitve sati bhujyata iti bhavati
tatra bhuktiḥ pramāṇam/… tasmādādhyādivyatiriktasya yathoktayā bhuktyā
svatvasiddhiḥ/ Aparārka , Ibid.
[98]:
…pūrvavādinaḥ pūrvasminkāle mayā pratigṛhītamupabhuktaṃ ceti yo vadatyasau pūrvavādī na
punaryaḥ pūrvaṃ nivedayati tasya sākṣiṇaḥ praṣṭavyāḥ/ Mitākṣarā,Ibid.
[99]:
Vide, Dīpakalikā, Vīramitrodaya and Aparārka on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.17
[100]:
upekṣayāpi dravyanāśo bhavatītyto draṣtavyaṃ paraisbhujyamānaṃ
nopekṣaṇīyamityabhiprāyaḥ/… upekṣāniṣedhamātraṃ caitat/ hānivacanaṃ
tu nindā mātratvenopekṣakasya vyavahārapravṛttyayogyatāmātrajñaptiphalam/ Bālakrīḍā, Ibid.,
2.24
[101]:
ucyate-bhumerdhanasya ca phalahāniriha vivakṣitā na vastuhānirnāpi vyavahārahāṇiḥ/ tathāhi-
nirākrośaṃ viṃśativarṣopabhugadūrdhvaṃ yadyapi svāmī nyāyataḥ kṣetraṃ tathāpi
phalānusaraṇaṃ na labhate/ apratiṣedhalakṣanātsvāparādhādasmācca vacanāt/ parokṣabhoge tu
viṃśaterūrdhvamapiphalānusaraṇaṃ labhata eva, paśyata iti vacanāt/ pratyakṣabhoge ca sākrośe
abruvata iti vacanāt/ viṃśateḥ prāk pratyakṣe nirākrośe ca labhate viṃśatigrahaṇāt/ Mitākṣarā,
Ibid., 2.24
[102]:
Manusmṛti,8.147-148
[103]:
Nāradasmṛti, 4.1.79-80
[104]:
The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 65
[105]:
ādhisīnopanikṣepajaḍabāladhanairvinā/ tathopanidhirājastrīśrotriyāṇāṃ dhanairapi//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.25
[106]:
cf., The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), Article 61(a), Section 6,7, 10, etc.
[107]:
Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.25
[108]:
ādhyādīnāṃ vihartāraṃ dhanine dāpayeddhanam/ daṇḍaṃ ca tatsamaṃ rājñe
saktyapekṣamathāpi vā// Ibid., 2.26
[109]:
āgamo’bhyadhiko bhogādvinā pūrvakaramā gatāt/ āgame’pi balaṃ naiva bhuktiḥ stokāpi yatra
no// Ibid.,2.27
[110]:
āgamo lekhyam/ Bālakrīḍā, Ibid.
[111]:
svatvahetuḥ pratigrahakrayādiḥ āgamaḥ/ Mitākṣarā, Ibid.
[112]:
āgamaḥ krayapratigrahādiḥ/ āgacchati svībhavatyaneneti vyutpatteḥ/ Vīramitrodaya, Ibid.
[113]:
svāmibhāvapratipādakaḥ krayapratigrahādiko’rthaḥ…/ Aparārka , Ibid.
[114]:
ataśca sāgamo dīrghakālo nirantaro nirākrośaḥ pratyarthipratyakṣaśceti
pañcaviśeṣaṇayukto bhogaḥ pramāṇamityuktaṃ bhavati/ Mitākṣarā , Ibid.
[115]:
āgamo’bhyadhiko bhogāditi ca smārtakālaviṣayam/… asmārte tu kāle
yogyānupalabdhyabhāvenāgamābhāvaniścayā saṃbhavādāgamajñānanirapekṣa evaṃ saṃtato
bhogaḥ pramāṇam/ Ibid.
[116]:
āgamastu kṛto yena so’bhiyuktastamuddharet/ na tatsutastatsuto vā bhuktistatra garīyasī//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.28
[117]:
anena cādyasya puruṣasyāgamamanuddharato daṇḍa ityuktaṃ bhavati/… anenāpi tṛtīyasya
kramāyātabhogānuddharaṇe daṇḍo nāgamānuddharaṇe na viśiṣtabhogānuddharaṇe
cetyabhihitam/ Mitākṣarā , Ibid.
[118]:
Nāradasmṛti, 4.1.90
[119]:
Vīramitrodaya on Yājñavalkyasmṛti, 2.29
[120]:
yo’bhiyuktaḥ paretaḥ paretaḥ syāttasya rikthītamuddharet/ na
tatra kāraṇaṃ bhuktirāgamena vinā kṛtā// Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.29
[121]:
tathārūḍhavivādasya pretasya vyavahāriṇaḥ/ putreṇa so’rthaḥ saṃśodhyo na taṃbhagapadaṃ
nayet// Nāradasmṛti, 4.1.93
[122]:
balopādhivinirvṛttānvyavahārannivartayet/ strīnaktamantarāgārabahiḥ śatrukṛtāṃstathā//
Yājñavalkyasmṛti,2.31
[123]:
mattonmattārtavayasanibālabhītādiyojitaḥ/ asaṃbaddhakṛtaścaiva vyavahāro na siddhyati//
Ibid.,2.32
[124]:
pranaṣṭādhigataṃ deyaṃ nṛpeṇa dhanine dhanam/ vibhāvayenna celliṅgaistatsamaṃ
daṇḍamarhati// Ibid.,2.33
[125]:
Ibid.,2.34-35
[126]:
itareṇa tu rājavidvadbrāhmaṇavyatiriktena avidvadbrāhmaṇakṣatriyādinā nidhau labdhe rājā
ṣaṣṭhāṃśamadhigantre datvā śeṣaṃ nidhiṃ sayamāharet/ Mitākṣarā ,Ibid.,2.35