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

$\left.{l}S I 2 1-4
M p. 15 l 20 p 161 11\right]$ MEANS OF PROOF 21
a case accept (rely upon) the human evidence and not upon the divine
(test) If human proof is offered by litigating persons, though it meets
only a (substantial) portion (of the whole claim in the plaint), it should
be accepted (relied upon) and not supernatural proof, though the latter may
be complete (i e may completly cover the whole claim in the plaint) In
disputes, when witnesses are available, supernatural proof is not allowed and
when there is a document,$^1$ no ordeal nor witnesses (should be relied upon) As
to the peculiar conventions of pūgas (communities), śreṇis (guilds of traders)
or gaṇas (tribes), writing is the (proper) means of proof and not ordeals
nor witnesses $^2$Where a thing is promised to be given but not delivered,
where a thing is (given and then) taken back, in the matter of deter-
mining the owner (of a thing), in the matter of taking back a thing after
it is sold, when one after purchasing a thing does not desire to pay the
price, in gambling and betting (on animals) when a dispute arises, (in
one of these cases) witnesses are declared to be the means of proof
and not ordeals nor documents In (disputes about) the making and
use of doors and ways and about water-courses and the like, possession
alone is weighty, neither writing nor witnesses
Bṛhaspati (p 315 vv 1-2) declares the superiority of supernatural proof in
certain cases
One who fabricates (or counterfeits) jewels, pearls and coins, who mis-
appropriates a deposit entrusted to him, one who injures another, one who
has intercourse with another's wife, these should always be tried with
oaths $^3$ In charges of deadly sins, if a party resorts to ordeals when wit-
nesses are available, (the king) should not examine witnesses
Vyāsa (says) *
(If a person says) 'I did not pass this document, it was falsely made
(forged) by him (by the opponent),' disregarding that document, the
decision as to that matter should be by means of ordeal, (where a wrong
takes place) in a forest or in a lonely place, at night, inside the house, in
cases of sāhasa and when a deposit is denied a divine mode of proof is
allowable $^4$
Bṛhaspati (p 317 v 17) says

1. Compare sec 91 of the Evidence Act
2. The first two here fall under Dattāpradānikavyavahārapada, the next may also
   mean 'when there has to be a decision between the master and the herdsman', the next
   comes under krayavikrayānus'aya The verse 'dattādatte &c' as quoted in the nibandhas
   presents a bewildering variety of readings The verse about the making and use of doors is
   referred to in Lallubhai v Bai Amrit I L R 2 Bom 299 at p 315
   3 Both oaths and ordeals are supernatural (daiva) means of proof, the former being
   employed in less serious wrongs Vide notes to V M p 45 for explanation.
3. This last verse is Nārada (ṛnādana 241),

• P 22 (text) § P 23 (text)