Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
110. This is an instance of an unmeaning or frivolous accusation, A. ; 11. The reading of this paragraph is uncertain. THE PLAINT. 27 (a cause which) is opposed to (the interests of) the city or kingdom (in which he lives). 13. A plaint in which a mere dot is omitted, or where a word or a syllable has been obliterated, or where too little or too much has been written, or which is absurd; such a plaint should be carefully avoided. 14. He should (equally) avoid a plaint which has been destroyed or damaged (by an accident), or which has been soiled by water, oil, or other (liquids), even though the purport and meaning of the plaint be quite plain. *15. A plaint, though otherwise established, is not correct, if it is contrary to established law and usage. 16. A claim which is proffered in this form—‘I gave this to him while he was in a state of intoxication with fragrance (through a smell of perfume) ’— cannot succeed, because it is contrary to established usage. * 17, Where different words are (subsequently) inserted (in the plaint), and where the sense becomes different (in consequence), there the judicial investigation becomes confused, and the evidence itself is thrown into confusion. *18, When the claimant, in a passion, and actuated 17. A. illustrates this rule by the following example. The claimant has claimed a certain sum. At the time of the trial he names a larger sum than he did before. Thus the judicial investigation becomes confused. 18. If a man actuated by one of the three passions, sexual desire, wrath, and covetousness, mentions some special (important) circumstance at the trial, the scribe shall enter it at once in writing on a board, or leaf, or Bhfrga-bark, or box, or wall. A. This rule seems to relate to incidental statements, which escape one of the parties through inadvertency. Thus in the well-known drama Mrikkhakafika, the wicked prince SamsthAnaka, when informing the 28 . NARADA. by one of the immoral motives, such as partiality, makes some special statement, it shall at once be completely reduced to writing on a board or other (writing material). 19. Other statements than those (taken down at first)regarding the plaintiffon a board or other (writing material) shall be removed, after careful consideration, by persons versed in law, (when reporting on the trial) for the information of the king’s judge. 20. Let such persons reduce to writing the statements of each party, and whatever else has been written on the board, together with the names of the
220. Let such persons reduce to writing the statements of each party, and whatever else has been written on the board, together with the names of the judge that Vasantasena has been murdered, adds, ‘ not by myself.’ The judge pounces upon the latter statement, suspicious as it looks, and causes the scribe to put it down in writing on the floor. The prince, perceiving that he has committed himself, effaces the writing with his foot. The custom of writing the statements of the parties on the floor is repeatedly referred to in the Indian dramas. From what Brzhaspati says, it would seem that in the time of this law-writer the statements of the parties had first to be written on a board, and then on a leaf, after all the required corrections had been entered. Narada seems to refer to the same custom in paragraphs 19 and 20. According to Dr. Burnell, the boards referred to in the law-books must have been a sort of black wooden boards. See Burnell, South Indian Palzography, 2nd ed., p. 87. 20. In translating this paragraph, the obscurity of which is only surpassed by the preceding paragraph, I have deviated from the interpretation proposed by the commentator. A. takes this paragraph as containing four independent clauses: 1. what has been stated or admitted by both parties; 2. whatever else has been written on the board; 3. the depositions of the witnesses; 4. what each party has conceded to the other. These four things should be reduced to writing by the persons entrusted with the judicial investigation. ‘Whatever else has been written on the board,’ i.e. whatever the plaintiff amends or adds, while the plaint is being reduced to writing. Such statements, as shown in the next paragraph, are called Pratydkalita. THE PLAINT. 29 witnesses, as well as those statements in which both parties concur. 21. Additional statements of the plaintiff (or defendant), which are not contained in the writings of both parties, shall be (subsequently) entered into his (their) declaration. They are called Praty4kalita (‘ what is interposed’). * 22, If one deputed by the claimant, or chosen as his representative by the defendant, speaks for his client in court, the victory or defeat concerns the party (himself and not the representative). * 23. He deserves punishment who speaks in behalf of another, without being either the brother, the father, the son, or the appointed. agent; and so does he who contradicts himself at the trial. * 24. He who forsakes his original claim and produces a new one, loses his suit, because he confounds two plaints with one another. * 25. A verbal error does not annul the claim in 21. A. infers from the use of the term ‘both parties’ that a Pratydkalita statement may proceed from the defendant as well as from the plaintiff, though the plaintiff alone is specially mentioned. A. adds that this rule applies equally to all those kinds of statements, which are mentioned in paragraph 20.
3A. adds that this rule applies equally to all those kinds of statements, which are mentioned in paragraph 20. 22. This rule applies equally where a party is prevented from appearing before the court by illness, and where the party is not a good speaker, and has appointed an agent or attorney for that reason. A. 23. This prohibition relates to those who, from love, anger, or - avarice, meddle with the affairs of strangers, and pretend to act in their behalf at court. A. 24. If a claimant, on finding himself unable to prove his claim at the trial, proffers a different claim, he must be pronounced the losing party, on account of the confusion caused by him. A. 25. An erroneous statement does not necessarily cause the defeat 30 NARADA. actions of any kind. So if the case relates to cattle, or to a woman, or to land, or to a debt, he is liable to punishment, but his claim is not annulled. 26. Where the defendant denies the charge, the claimant has to prove his accusation, unless the denial should have been in the form called Pratyavaskandana. * 27. What the claimant has fully declared word for word in the plaint that he must substantiate by adducing evidence at the third stage of the trial. * 28. Proof is said to be of two kinds, human and divine. Human proof consists of documentary and oral evidence. By divine proof is meant the ordeal by balance and the other (modes of divine test). 29. Where a transaction has taken place by day, of the plaintiff. This is particularly the case in one of the following important actions: a case relating to a cow, female buffalo, or other cattle; a case relating to a woman; a case relating to landed property, i.e. a house, field, &c.; and a case relating to one of the twenty-five subdivisions of the law of debt. In any case he is not defeated, merely on account of an erroneous statement contained in the suit. He does not lose the suit instituted by him, though he is liable to punishment. A. The Mit&kshard (p. 23) has a long gloss on this rule of Narada, from which it appears that the ‘erroneous statements’ here referred to are statements made through inadvertency, and that this rule applies to civil, as opposed to criminal actions. Read vaksale in the Sanskrit text. 26. An answer in the form called Pratyavaskandana is where the defendant admits the facts adduced by the plaintiff, but explains them so as not to be matter of accusation. 24. The claimant must prove, at the judicial investigation, whatever he has committed to writing in the plaint. A. 29. The divers kinds of divine test will be declared below. In the case of all those transactions which take place during day-time eye- and ear-witnesses are present. Documentary evidence, likewise, is generally available in such cases. Therefore, divine proof should not be resorted to. Where a transaction is known to have PLAINT AND ANSWER. 31 in a village or town, or in the presence of witnesses, divine test is not applicable.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
110. This is an instance of an unmeaning or frivolous accusation, A. ; 11. The reading of this paragraph is uncertain. THE PLAINT. 27 (a cause which) is opposed to (the interests of) the city or kingdom (in which he lives). 13. A plaint in which a mere dot is omitted, or where a word or a syllable has been obliterated, or where too little or too much has been written, or which is absurd; such a plaint should be carefully avoided. 14. He should (equally) avoid a plaint which has been destroyed or damaged (by an accident), or which has been soiled by water, oil, or other (liquids), even though the purport and meaning of the plaint be quite plain. *15. A plaint, though otherwise established, is not correct, if it is contrary to established law and usage. 16. A claim which is proffered in this form—‘I gave this to him while he was in a state of intoxication with fragrance (through a smell of perfume) ’— cannot succeed, because it is contrary to established usage. * 17, Where different words are (subsequently) inserted (in the plaint), and where the sense becomes different (in consequence), there the judicial investigation becomes confused, and the evidence itself is thrown into confusion. *18, When the claimant, in a passion, and actuated 17. A. illustrates this rule by the following example. The claimant has claimed a certain sum. At the time of the trial he names a larger sum than he did before. Thus the judicial investigation becomes confused. 18. If a man actuated by one of the three passions, sexual desire, wrath, and covetousness, mentions some special (important) circumstance at the trial, the scribe shall enter it at once in writing on a board, or leaf, or Bhfrga-bark, or box, or wall. A. This rule seems to relate to incidental statements, which escape one of the parties through inadvertency. Thus in the well-known drama Mrikkhakafika, the wicked prince SamsthAnaka, when informing the 28 . NARADA. by one of the immoral motives, such as partiality, makes some special statement, it shall at once be completely reduced to writing on a board or other (writing material). 19. Other statements than those (taken down at first)regarding the plaintiffon a board or other (writing material) shall be removed, after careful consideration, by persons versed in law, (when reporting on the trial) for the information of the king’s judge. 20. Let such persons reduce to writing the statements of each party, and whatever else has been written on the board, together with the names of the
220. Let such persons reduce to writing the statements of each party, and whatever else has been written on the board, together with the names of the judge that Vasantasena has been murdered, adds, ‘ not by myself.’ The judge pounces upon the latter statement, suspicious as it looks, and causes the scribe to put it down in writing on the floor. The prince, perceiving that he has committed himself, effaces the writing with his foot. The custom of writing the statements of the parties on the floor is repeatedly referred to in the Indian dramas. From what Brzhaspati says, it would seem that in the time of this law-writer the statements of the parties had first to be written on a board, and then on a leaf, after all the required corrections had been entered. Narada seems to refer to the same custom in paragraphs 19 and 20. According to Dr. Burnell, the boards referred to in the law-books must have been a sort of black wooden boards. See Burnell, South Indian Palzography, 2nd ed., p. 87. 20. In translating this paragraph, the obscurity of which is only surpassed by the preceding paragraph, I have deviated from the interpretation proposed by the commentator. A. takes this paragraph as containing four independent clauses: 1. what has been stated or admitted by both parties; 2. whatever else has been written on the board; 3. the depositions of the witnesses; 4. what each party has conceded to the other. These four things should be reduced to writing by the persons entrusted with the judicial investigation. ‘Whatever else has been written on the board,’ i.e. whatever the plaintiff amends or adds, while the plaint is being reduced to writing. Such statements, as shown in the next paragraph, are called Pratydkalita. THE PLAINT. 29 witnesses, as well as those statements in which both parties concur. 21. Additional statements of the plaintiff (or defendant), which are not contained in the writings of both parties, shall be (subsequently) entered into his (their) declaration. They are called Praty4kalita (‘ what is interposed’). * 22, If one deputed by the claimant, or chosen as his representative by the defendant, speaks for his client in court, the victory or defeat concerns the party (himself and not the representative). * 23. He deserves punishment who speaks in behalf of another, without being either the brother, the father, the son, or the appointed. agent; and so does he who contradicts himself at the trial. * 24. He who forsakes his original claim and produces a new one, loses his suit, because he confounds two plaints with one another. * 25. A verbal error does not annul the claim in 21. A. infers from the use of the term ‘both parties’ that a Pratydkalita statement may proceed from the defendant as well as from the plaintiff, though the plaintiff alone is specially mentioned. A. adds that this rule applies equally to all those kinds of statements, which are mentioned in paragraph 20.
3A. adds that this rule applies equally to all those kinds of statements, which are mentioned in paragraph 20. 22. This rule applies equally where a party is prevented from appearing before the court by illness, and where the party is not a good speaker, and has appointed an agent or attorney for that reason. A. 23. This prohibition relates to those who, from love, anger, or - avarice, meddle with the affairs of strangers, and pretend to act in their behalf at court. A. 24. If a claimant, on finding himself unable to prove his claim at the trial, proffers a different claim, he must be pronounced the losing party, on account of the confusion caused by him. A. 25. An erroneous statement does not necessarily cause the defeat 30 NARADA. actions of any kind. So if the case relates to cattle, or to a woman, or to land, or to a debt, he is liable to punishment, but his claim is not annulled. 26. Where the defendant denies the charge, the claimant has to prove his accusation, unless the denial should have been in the form called Pratyavaskandana. * 27. What the claimant has fully declared word for word in the plaint that he must substantiate by adducing evidence at the third stage of the trial. * 28. Proof is said to be of two kinds, human and divine. Human proof consists of documentary and oral evidence. By divine proof is meant the ordeal by balance and the other (modes of divine test). 29. Where a transaction has taken place by day, of the plaintiff. This is particularly the case in one of the following important actions: a case relating to a cow, female buffalo, or other cattle; a case relating to a woman; a case relating to landed property, i.e. a house, field, &c.; and a case relating to one of the twenty-five subdivisions of the law of debt. In any case he is not defeated, merely on account of an erroneous statement contained in the suit. He does not lose the suit instituted by him, though he is liable to punishment. A. The Mit&kshard (p. 23) has a long gloss on this rule of Narada, from which it appears that the ‘erroneous statements’ here referred to are statements made through inadvertency, and that this rule applies to civil, as opposed to criminal actions. Read vaksale in the Sanskrit text. 26. An answer in the form called Pratyavaskandana is where the defendant admits the facts adduced by the plaintiff, but explains them so as not to be matter of accusation. 24. The claimant must prove, at the judicial investigation, whatever he has committed to writing in the plaint. A. 29. The divers kinds of divine test will be declared below. In the case of all those transactions which take place during day-time eye- and ear-witnesses are present. Documentary evidence, likewise, is generally available in such cases. Therefore, divine proof should not be resorted to. Where a transaction is known to have PLAINT AND ANSWER. 31 in a village or town, or in the presence of witnesses, divine test is not applicable.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.