व्यवहारमयूख (नीलकण्ठ भट्ट - पश्चिमी भारत की हिन्दू न्याय-संहिता एवं व्यवहार कोष)

S. V. 1. 7 ] DEBTS 201
M. p. 104 ll. 24-32 ]
This* is declared to be the universal (all-embracing) rule as to
interest on loans; but the established usage of each country may be
different and may prevail according to the nature of the debt$^1$
'Sārvabhaumaḥ' means 'universal' These rules about (the maxi-
mum recoverable) being double and the like (of the principal) hold good
only when there is a single transaction. But if a fresh transaction be made
at a different time (from the original date) or with a different person
(from the original debtor) or by deductions or additions to the debt already
due, then the (maximum recoverable) may be more than the highest
interest (allowed by the śāstra at one time)$^2$ And so also Manu (VIII.
151) says :
Interest in money-lending business does not go beyond double, when

1. This verse and the following passage of the Mayūkha are quoted in 24 Bom. 305
   at p. 308.
2. The sages are not agreed as to the rate of interest on various articles and so
   Nārada observes that there are local usages But all are agreed as to gold and silver
   or money that the interest recoverable at one time in a lump cannot exceed the principal.
   This is called the rule of dāmdupat. The principal text is that of Manu (VIII. 151)
   which is similar to Gautama XII. 28. Nīlakaṇṭha very laconically puts several propositions
   about this rule. The principal rules about dāmdupat laid down by the Mit and the
   Mayūkha are four. They are (I) if money is lent only once to a man and interest is
   recovered only once in a lump then the maximum amount recoverable (together with
   interest) at one time cannot be more than double the sum lent, whatever the rate of inter-
   est may be and whatever the length of time may be, (II) if interest is received every
   month or every year and not in a lump at one time, then the total interest received
   may be so much that the creditor may have recovered more than double the sum lent,
   (III) if after the interest has accumulated for some time, there is a fresh agreement
   (prayogāntara) with the same debtor whereby the sum lent together with interest due
   is taken as the principal and fresh interest is agreed to be paid on the sum so arrived at,
   then the total recoverable after this second agreement may exceed more than double the
   sum originally lent (this is kālāntarena prayogāntare of the Mayūkha), (IV) if after the sum
   due to the creditor has become double of the sum lent, the creditor accepts another man
   as the debtor (who takes the liability upon himself), then the creditor may recover from
   the substituted debtor after the lapse of years a sum which may be more than double the
   sum originally lent by the creditor (this is 'puruṣāntarena prayogāntare' of the Mayūkha).
   It is not necessary in cases falling under the third rule that the whole sum due (principal
   and interest) should be capitalized and again put to interest, it may be that the creditor
   makes a deduction (reka) from the sum due by way of concession or he may make an
   addition (seka) by a further cash payment and then put the whole to interest (this is
   'tatrava rekasekādinā vā prayogāntare' of the Mayūkha) Vide the Mit on Yāj II. 39
   There are numerous cases explaining the limits of the rule of dāmdupat. Vide 1 Bom 73,
   3 Bom 131, 20 Bom. 721 (F. B), 1 Bom. L. R 551 (at p. 555 three propositions are sum-
   marised), 35 Bom. 199, 21 Bom L R. 419 and notes on Kāt. vv 510--512. Under the
   Deccan Agriculturists' relief Act (XVII of 1879) the benefit of the rule of dāmdupat is
   given even to non-Hindu debtors, if they are agriculturists.

• P. 171 (text).
  V. M. 26