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

S. V. 4. 12-11 ] RECOVERY OF DEBTS 215
M. p. 112 ll. 16-30 ]
Yāj (II. 50) says ·
When the father has gone abroad or is dead or is overwhelmed by diffi-
culties, his* debt if proved by witnesses when it is disputed (by the sons
or grandsons) must be paid by sons and grandsons ¹
Nārada (p. 46 v. 14) says that the son and the rest were bound to
pay the debt (of the father &c) only when twenty years old :
When the father had gone abroad and also in the case of the uncle or
eldest brother (going abroad) the son (or the nephew &c) was not bound
to pay the debt before the twentieth year.²
Kātyāyana says :
A debt incurred by the father, if he is afflicted with disease or has left
his country for another must be paid by the sons after the twentieth year
even when the father is living ³
The word 'proṣita' (gone abroad) is indicative also of 'one dead'.
Hence Viṣṇu (Dh. S VI 27) says 'when the borrower is dead or has become an
ascetic (sannyāsin) or has lived abroad for twenty years, the debt must be
paid by his sons and grandsons'. Nārada (p 41 v 2) says
When the father is dead, the sons should pay the (father's) debt accor-
ding to their shares if they be divided; but if undivided then he (out
of the sons) should pay who bears that responsibility (as a manager of
the family) ⁴
two verses of Kātyāyana about the grandson's liability to pay with interest and also with-
out interest are referred to. In 4 Patna 478 (at p 482) the judges express their inability
to understand what Bṛhaspati means when he says that the grandson should pay grand-
father's debt without interest and follow Yāj. and Viṣṇu and refuse to follow Bṛhaspati.
They had no idea of the particular circumstances under which alone, as shown above,
Bṛhaspati's text was to be applied.

1. This verse makes no distinction between sons and grandsons as to the payment of
   debts (while Br. makes that distinction) and applies where assets are taken by the grand-
   sons. The Mit explains 'vyasanābhipluta' as 'afflicted with an incurable disease', while
   Aparārka explains as 'addicted to drinking or other vices' If there were sons and grand-
   sons the Mit says that the sons were the first to pay This verse is quoted in 42 Mad. 711
   (F. B.) at p. 730.
2. This does not apply to a debt incurred by the father and others for a family
   necessity. Such a debt must be paid at once This verse states the liability of the son
   and others when the father, uncle or brother was alive though gone abroad and the debt was
   not for family necessity Nilakantha refers 'twenty years' to the age of the son &c, while
   other authors like the Vīr refer them to the lapse of time after the father went abroad.
   Viṣṇu VI. 27 quoted in the text later on supports this latter interpretation
   3 This verse is referred to in I L. R. 41 Mad 136 at p 149 and 42 Mad. 711
   (F. B) at p 730.
3. This verse is quoted in Narayanacharya v Narso 1 Bom. 262 at p. 266 and in
   19 All. 26 (F B.) at p. 28. Vide Udaram v. Ranu P J. for 1875 p '26 at pp. 28-29
   for texts.

• P. 185 (text).