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

S II 1 9-II.2-1 ] DOCUMENTS 27
V p 20 ll 15-36 ]
written the document in dispute )¹ and by presumption, by the (possibility
or otherwise of ) the meeting together ( of the parties ), by proof, by marks
( such as seals ), by the ( subsequent ) relations ( of the parties ), by the
( probability of the origin of ) title, and inference ²
Yuktiḥ means ' presumption from circumstances '; prāptiḥ means ' staying
together of the two parties ( to a document ) in the same place '; cihnam
means 'the impression of a seal and the like', kriyā means 'witnesses and
the like' ( other means of proof ), sambandhaḥ means ' relation in future'
( i. e. after the alleged date of the document ), āgamaḥ means ' some pro-
bable mode of acquisition ' ( of the document ),³ hetuḥ means 'inference '
Prajāpati says
"The decision about (the genuineness of) a royal writing ( grant ) should
be made with great effort by means of the examination of the king's own
signature ( thereon ), of the seal and of the handwriting of the scribe
(of the grant)
Bṛhaspati ( p 307 vv 23-24 ) declares what are vitiated documents
A document executed by a dying man, by an enemy, by one in fear,
by one distressed, by a woman, by one intoxicated,⁴ by one who is over-
whelmed in some calamity, and executed at night by fraud or force does not
become valid. Where even a single witness who (whose signature) is plac-
ed on a deed is vitiated ( on account of the above mentioned causes ) and
who is censured or where the writer of a deed is of that sort, that deed is
declared to be a false document
Here ends the section on writing
Now ( begins ) Possession ⁵
Nārada ( p 62 v 85 ) says
Possession acquires validity ( as evidence ) when accompanied by a
clear title Possession with a clouded title does not amount to proof
( is not accepted as a means of proof )

1 Compare section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act
2 For detailed explanation of the words yukti, prāpti, sambandha, āgama, hetu, vide
notes to V M pp 54--55 The Mit and the Mayūkha widely differ in the interpretation of
these terms
3 This means that it should be seen whether the document is produced from
proper custody
4 In Narbadabai v Mahadeo I, L R 5, Bom 99 at p 104 it is suggested that
' strīmatta ' should be taken as one clause meaning 'under female or aphrodisiac influence ,
but this is not correct, as Kāt v 271 separately mentions ' strī ' and ' matta '
5 In Lalubhai v Bai Amrit I L R 2 Bom 299 at pp 314--316 the whole of the
section on possession is critically examined and differences between the two views of
Vijñāneśvara and Nīlakaṇṭha are pointed out

• P. 30 (text)