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

208 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ S. V. § 2-4
[ M. p. 108 ll. 8-25
The grandson should pay the debt of his grandfather but only the
principal, the son also should pay only the principal of the suretyship debt
(of his father), this applies when the position of a surety is undertaken
without receiving any monetary consideration. But where suretyship is
undertaken after receiving money the son and the grandson also should pay
(the suretyship debt) with interest. And so says Kātyāyana:
Where a person becomes a surety for the appearance of a man after
receiving a pledge from him the son of the surety should be made to pay
in the absence (of the father) the money from his paternal wealth.¹
Yājñavalkya (II. 55) says:
If there be many sureties they should pay the debt (due from the
principal) in accordance with their shares (i. e. equally or in pro-
portions agreed upon) but when they have each bound themselves to
the same extent (as the principal) then at the pleasure of the creditor
(any one of them will have to pay the whole)
Ekacchāyā means an undertaking made by each 'I alone shall pay
the whole (debt).' when the sureties have resorted to such an undertaking
any one of them would have to pay according to the creditor's choice. But
when the agreement is 'I shall pay in certain shares' then payment shall
be made accordingly. This is the meaning. Kātyāyana says:
text is given its appropriate scope. Ancient sages made sons and grandsons liable for their
father's or grandfather's debt even if no property of the father or grandfather came to their
hands. But it seemed very hard that descendants should be made to pay their
remote ancestor's debts with interest. Therefore when no property existed, the great
grandson was not bound to pay any debt of his great-grandfather, the grandson was
bound to pay only the principal (but not interest) and the son was liable to pay
the principal as well as interest. But if ancestral property existed and was taken by
descendants, then sons, grandsons and great-grandsons were all bound to pay the debt to
the full. This last follows from Yāj. II. 51, Bṛ (p. 328 v. 48). Kātyāyana quoted above
(on text p. 101) verses 555-558 of Kāt. and the Mit. on Yāj. II. 51. The former pro-
position is the subject of the verse of Vyāsa and of Bṛ (p. 328 v. 42). The Vīramitrodaya
(p. 84) very tersely but clearly puts these two propositions: पुत्रेण रिक्थग्रहणादृणयोः स-
वृद्धिकमेव देयम् । पुत्राभावे पौत्रेण रिक्थग्रहणे सोदयं देयम्। अग्रहणे मूलमेव । प्रपौत्रेण तु रिक्थग्रहणे
मूलमपि न देयम् ॥ As to suretyship debts a distinction was made. If no money was
received, even the grandson was not bound to pay his grandfather's suretyship debt and
the son was bound to pay only the principal. This is expressed by Kāt. Some writers
went so far as to say that the son was not bound to pay any suretyship debt of his father
(vide Gautama XII. 38, Manu VIII. 159, Vas. XVI. 31) while others said that the son was
not bound to pay when the father stood surety for appearance or honesty but that he was
bound to pay when the father stood surety for payment (vide Manu VIII. 160 and
Bṛ. p. 327 v. 41 cited above). In 10 Patna p. 34 it was held that if the father stood
safety for honesty the son was not bound to pay that debt. Vide also 4 Patna L. J. 309.

1. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 51 explains that this applies to the surety for honesty also.
   If we read vinā pitṝ dhanāt the meaning would be 'in the absence of the father from
   that wealth (viz. from the pledge).' In the absence of the father means 'if he be
   dead or gone abroad'.
   )