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

216 VYAVAHĀRAMAYŪKHA [ M. p. 111 l. 31-p. 112 l. 15 ]
was returned ¹ Kātyāyana states the evil results happening to a debtor
in case he does not repay a debt:
He who, having taken a debt or the like does not pay it back to the
owner (creditor) is born in (the latter s) house as a slave a servant a wife
or a beast ²
Uddhāraḥ ³ means a debt; by the word ādi (in uddhārādikam)
a friendly loan and deposit are included. Dāsaḥ means a born slave ,
bhṛtyaḥ ¹ is one who is secured for wages. Nārada ( p 44 vv 7-8 ) says
The debt or promised gift which a debtor does not pay even when
demanded goes on multiplying till it reaches to a thousand millions. On
that amount being reached the debtor enveloped in ( the consequences of )
that act shall be born in each successive birth a horse a donkey a bull
'or a slave.
'Pratigraham means what is promised to be given Vyāsa also
says ³
If an ascetic or an agnihotrin ( one who keeps sacrificial fires ) were
to die indebted all ( the merit of ) his austerities and agnihotra will
belong to the creditor
Bṛhaspati ( p 328 v 49 ) says
The father s debt when proved must be repaid by the sons as if it were
their own ( i. e with interest ) The debt of the grandfather should be
paid equal to the principal ( i e without interest ) and the son of the
grandson need not pay at all.⁴
1 The V R. and Aparārka explain pratis'rava as meaning a verbal acknowledg-
ment in public ( or before witnesses ) of the repayment of a debt This is, according to
Amara, the proper meaning. The meaning assigned in the text is far fetched.
2. Compare Nārada p. 44 vv 7-8 quoted later on.
3. This is Nārada p. 44 v 9
4 Vide text p 177 Vyāsa verse. This verse is quoted in Narayanacharya v Narso 1
Bom. 269 at p. 286. Bṛhaspati as said there is referring to a case where no property comes to
the grandson. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 51 distinctly says that if the great-grandson and the like
take the estate of the deceased, they have to pay the debt of the great-grandfather. Modern
decisions have followed this view of the Mit. In 19 All. 26 ( F B. ) and 4 Patna 478 a
grandson taking assets was held liable to pay his grandfather s debt with interest, while L.R.
53 I. A. p. 204 (=48 All. 518) decides that the great-grandson who has taken assets is liable
to pay the debt of the great-grandfather with interest just as a son is liable. In 48 All. 518
at p. 526 Yāj II. 50 and Bṛ. are quoted. In Narsinharas v Krishanarao 9 Bom. H. C. R.
p. 64 it was held ( probably following Bṛhaspati ) that the grandson was liable to pay the
debt of his grandfather without interest independently of the question whether he took assets.
In order to remove the great hardship on heirs ( taking no assets ) caused by this decision
Bombay Act VII of 1866 ( The Hindu Heirs Relief Act ) was passed whereby it is provided
that a son or grandson is not liable to be sued for the debts of his deceased ancestor merely
by reason of his being a son or grandson and that the son or grandson or other heir shall be
liable only to the extent of the assets that came to his hands. In 19 All. 26 ( at p. 29 )