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

S VIII 4-IX. 2 ] JOINT UNDERTAKINGS OR PARTNERSHIPS 231
M. p. 122 ll 1-22 ]
Kātyāyana says ¹
If any one from among them while they are scattered about (for
pillage) is caught, then* they should contribute (or bear) according to
their shares towards the payment of the ransom for securing his release
This is the settled rule as regards all that engage in (a joint) under-
taking without (previously) defining their shares, such as traders,
husbandmen, thieves or artisans.
Here ends the section on joint undertakings.
Now begins (the section on) resumption of gifts
Nārada (p 128 v 1) says :
Where a man wishes to resume what he has improperly given, that is
a title of law called Dattāpradānika
‘Asamyak’ (in Nārada) is an adverb and means ‘in a way that is
forbidden’ The same author (Nārada p 128 vv 2, 4, 5) says
What may be given and what may not be given, valid gifts and invalid
gifts — in judicial matters, the law of gifts is said to be thus fourfold An
anvāhita, a yācitaka (loan for use), a pledge, joint property, a deposit,
son and wife, the whole property of one who has offspring and what has
been already promised to another man-these have been declared by the
(ancient) teachers to be inalienable (to be not proper subjects of gift)²
Here as a man has no property over the series of objects ending with
son and wife, the express prohibition of a gift with reference to them is mere
anuvāda (a laudatory or condemnatory re-iteration) as in the case of the
Vedic text ‘neither in middle regions nor in the heavens³’ This explanation
1 Nīlakantha introduces these verses rather abruptly In other works there are two
verses preceding the first verse quoted, which say that if certain adventurous spirits plunder
the territory of an enemy king at the bidding of their king, they should give one-tenth of
the booty to the king and divide the rest, that the head of the plundering party should get
four shares, the intrepid ones three shares, the strong ones two and the rest one share each
2 The words ‘anvāhitā, yācitaka, ādhi and nikṣepa’ have already been explained,
‘son and wife’—these must be regarded as one item Nārada (p 128 v 3) says that what may
not be given is eight-fold A person is not an absolute owner of what is anvāhita with him
or of yācitaka, of a pledge, deposit or of property jointly owned with others or of son
and wife
3 One cannot make a gift of what one does not own Nīlakantha established above (text
p 92 and tr p 83) that there is no ownership in wife and son Therefore the six objects ending
with son and wife in Nārada could not be gifted away. But Nārada does say that they are
‘adeya’ (using the potential passive participial) This is not a prohibition (niṣedha)
properly so called, for a prohibition is made about something that might, in the absence
of the prohibition, follow as a matter of course There being no ownership in the
six things and it being well-known that a gift can be made only of that which is owned by
one, it is not necessary to prohibit Therefore this is not a proper niṣedha These words

• P. 202 (text)