The Law Code of Yājñavalkya 2.6: atha lekhyaprakaraṇam

Possession and witnesses have been examined. Now documentary evidence is examined. There, a document is twofold: an edict of a ruler and a private document. The royal edict has been examined; the private document is now discussed. And that is twofold: handwritten by oneself and written by another. Among these, that written by oneself is without witnesses, and that written by another is with witnesses. And the authoritativeness of these two is in accordance with the local custom of the country. As Nārada says:

"A document, however, should be known as twofold: handwritten by oneself, and likewise written by another; / without witnesses and with witnesses; their validity arises from the established custom of the country." / So it is. (NSm 1.115)

There, he states [the rule for] that written by another:

Whatever matter is agreed upon mutually by their own consent, / a document with witnesses should be made regarding it, preceded by [the name of] the creditor.

Whatever matter between creditor and debtor—such as gold—is agreed upon, settled mutually by their own consent as, "within such a time this much is to be given, and such is the monthly interest," regarding that matter, in the event of dispute at another time, for the sake of determining the true state of affairs, a document with witnesses, that is, endowed with witnesses possessing the stated qualifications, preceded by [the name of] the creditor, that is, that in which the creditor is first—meaning, preceded by the writing of the creditor's name—should be made, ought to be executed. Or witnesses possessing the stated qualifications should be made;

"For the maker, for the sake of establishing what transaction was made, witnesses / proceed in disputes, or else a document made by oneself."

from this traditional rule. || 2.84

Moreover:

Marked with the year, month, half-month, day, name, caste, and one's own gotra, / fellow studenthood, one's own father's name, and so forth.

"Year" is the solar or lunar year; "month" is Caitra and so forth; "its half" is the fortnight, bright or dark; "day" is the lunar day, Pratipad and so forth; "name" of the creditor and debtor; "caste" is being a Brahmin and so forth; "one's own gotra" is the gotra of Vasiṣṭha and so forth. It is marked with these, the year and so forth. Likewise, "fellow studenthood" is the descriptive name conditioned by the Vedic branch, such as Rigvedin—[namely,] a Bahvṛca, a Kaṭha. "One's own father's name" is the father's name of the creditor and debtor. By the mention of "and so forth," the category of wealth, amount, local custom, and so on are included. And marked with these, "a document should be made" connects with what went before. || 2.85

Furthermore:

When the matter is completed, the debtor should write his name with his own hand: / "Approved by me, the son of so-and-so, is that which has been written above here."

When that matter which was settled between creditor and debtor by their own consent is completed, that is, written down, the debtor should insert, that is, write on the leaf with his own hand his name: "What is written above in this document is approved, that is, accepted by me, the son of so-and-so." || 2.86

Likewise:

And the witnesses should write with their own hand, preceded by their father's name: / "Here I, so-and-so, am a witness." They should be equal.

Those witnesses who are written in that document should also each write with their own hand, preceded by the writing of their father's name: "In this matter, this person, so-and-so Devadatta, is a witness." And they should be made equal in number and in quality. If the debtor or a witness is illiterate, then the debtor through another, and the witness through another witness, should cause his approval to be written in the presence of all the witnesses. As Nārada says:

"The debtor who is illiterate should cause his approval to be written; / or a witness through another witness in the presence of all witnesses." / Thus. (DhKo 357) || 2.87

Moreover:

"Requested by both, this has indeed been written by me, the son of so-and-so, / indeed named so-and-so"; the scribe should then write at the end.

Then the scribe should write at the end: "Requested by both, the creditor and the debtor, this document has been written by me, so-and-so Devadatta, son of Viṣṇumitra." || 2.88

Now he speaks of a document written by oneself:

Even without witnesses, however, a document which is written with one's own hand / is traditionally held to be valid evidence, except for that which is made by force or fraud.

That document which is written with his own hand by the debtor is traditionally held by Manu and others to be valid evidence even without witnesses, "except for that made by force or fraud," that is, apart from that which is done by force, by violence, or through fraud characterized by deceit, greed, anger, fear, intoxication, and so forth. Nārada also says:

"And that which is made by an intoxicated person, an accused person, a woman, a child, or through violence, / that writing is invalid, and likewise that which is made through fear or fraud." / So it is. (NSm 1.117)

And that document—whether made by one's own hand or made by another's hand—is to be written in transactions with a pledge or transactions without a pledge according to the custom of the country, properly, without loss of the order of the contents and without omission of the written characters; this much [is required], but it is not to be written only in correct Sanskrit words, it may also be written in the specific local vernacular of the country. As Nārada says:

"That which is not contrary to the custom of the country, has the rules concerning pledges clearly stated, / and whose sequence of letters is not omitted, is traditionally held to be a valid document." / So it is. (NSm 1.116)

"Rule" means regulation. "Rule regarding a pledge" means the regulation concerning a pledge, [that is,] the act of pledging. Its "characterisation" consists of [the terms such as] "a pledge to be kept", "a pledge to be enjoyed", "stipulated for a fixed time", and so forth. That in which this is manifest, [namely] perfectly clear, is that which has a clear characterisation of the rules regarding a pledge. "Whose sequence and letters are not omitted": "sequence of letters" means order, and letters; sequence and letters are sequence-and-letters; that in which sequence-and-letters are not omitted is that whose sequence and letters are not omitted. A document of such a kind is authoritative evidence. Unlike a royal edict, there is no restriction here to grammatically standard words—such is the intention. || 2.89

In connection with the document, he states that even a debt entered in a document is to be paid by three [generations] alone:

A debt incurred by a written document, however, / must be paid by three generations alone;

Just as a debt proven by witnesses and the like is to be paid by three alone, so also a debt incurred by a written document is restricted to being payable only by three—by the debtor who took it, by his son, and by that son's son—and not by the fourth [generation] and beyond.

[Objection:] But it is already an established rule that any debt whatsoever is to be paid by three alone, without distinction, as it is said: "A debt is to be paid by the sons and grandsons."

[Reply:] True. This statement is undertaken in order to remove a doubt about an exception, arising from another legal tradition, regarding a debt entered in a document. For, after stating the characteristics of a document, Kātyāyana has declared:

"In this manner, a debt of the fathers / that has exceeded the time limit is made to be paid."

Thus, a debt recorded in a document, even though it has exceeded the time limit, is made to be paid when related to the fathers. Here, from the use of the plural "of the fathers" and from the phrase "has exceeded the time limit," it is understood that the fourth generation and beyond must be made to pay. Likewise, Hārīta also [states]:

"In whose hand the document should be, / to him one should award the recovery."

Here too, since it is stated in general terms that "recovery of the debt belongs to him in whose hand the document is," it is understood that recovery of the debt exists even from the fourth generation and beyond. Therefore, it has been said that this verse is intended to remove that doubt. And both of these [other] statements must be construed in accordance with the statement of the Master of Yogins (Yājñavalkya).

He states an exception to this [rule]:

A pledge, however, is enjoyed for as long / as it (the debt) is not paid back.

Because of the rule that even a debt entered into a document with a security is to be paid by three alone, it would follow that there is a lack of entitlement to reclaim the pledge due to the lack of entitlement to discharge the debt; in response to this, it is stated: by saying that a pledge is enjoyed for just as long as the debt is not paid by the fourth or the fifth generation, the entitlement even of the fourth generation and beyond to discharge a secured debt is demonstrated.

[Objection:] But this too has already been stated: "A pledge whose fruit is to be enjoyed does not perish" (YDh 2.58).

[Reply:] True. In the absence of this exceptional statement, even that [provision] would apply only to the three generations. Thus, everything is unexceptionable. || 2.90

Having concluded the incidental topic, he returns to the primary subject matter:

When it remains in another country, is illegibly written, / lost, effaced, or stolen, / torn, burnt, or severed, / one should cause another document to be made.

It is enjoined that when a document is unfit for legal procedure, another document should be made. Unfitness for legal procedure means: when the document is situated in an extremely remote country; when it is badly written—that is, badly written when the characters of the script or the words in it are corrupt, doubtful, or meaningless—; when it is lost due to the effect of time; when it is rubbed out, its written characters being effaced due to faint ink or the like; when it is stolen by thieves and the like; when it is broken, that is, torn into pieces; when it is burnt, that is, consumed by fire; or when it is split, having become severed into two parts—then a duplicate document comes into being. And this applies when there is mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. However, when there is disagreement and litigation arises, time must be granted according to the distance of the journey to bring the document that is in another country. But when the document is located in an inaccessible place or is lost, the determination of the lawsuit must be made solely by means of witnesses. As Nārada says:

When a document is situated in another country, decayed, badly written, or stolen, / a time limit is to be set for an existing one, and examination of witnesses for a non-existing one. // (NSm 1.122)

When a document exists, being located in another country, an allowance of time, that is, a time limit, must be granted for fetching it. But for non-existing ones, that is, when the document does not exist, examination, meaning the conclusion of the lawsuit, must be conducted by those who were previously witnesses, that is, attested to it. When, however, there are no witnesses, the determination must be made by divine trial (ordeal),

In a lawsuit lacking documents and witnesses, one should prescribe divine trial. / (KSm 224)

from such a traditional rule. And this is a public document of settlement. A royal document of settlement is also of this very nature. But there is this distinction:

A document bearing the king's own signature and marked with his seal / is declared to be a royal document, serving as witness in all matters. // (KSm 258)

Likewise, another royal document, the decree of victory, is declared by Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha:

That which contains the plaintiff's claim as stated, along with the answer and the trial, / and is accompanied by the judgment, is considered a decree of victory. // Having the signatures of the chief judge and others, and stamped with the royal seal, / he should give the decree of victory to the victorious party when the matter is established.

Likewise, the members of the court also must append their signatures, saying, "This is the opinion of me, son of so-and-so,"

And whatever members of the court conversant with legal treatises are present there, / they indeed must append their signatures, just as in the rule of drafting documents. // (KSm 263)

from such a traditional rule. And without the mutual consensus of the members of the court, a lawsuit does not become free from flaw. As Nārada says:

Where all the court members consider that "this is correct," / that dispute will be free from flaw; otherwise, it will contain a flaw. // (NSm Mā 3.16)

This applies only in a four-stage lawsuit,

That which establishes the matter to be proved, is accompanied by the four stages, / and is stamped with the royal seal, is considered a decree of victory. // (BṛSm 1.6.28)

from such a traditional rule. Where, however, there is loss of suit by default, as in:

One who asserts a different claim, one who rejects legal proof, one who does not appear, one who offers no reply, / and one who flees after being summoned—the defeated party is declared to be of five kinds. // (NSm Mā 2.33)

in that case, there is no decree of victory, but only a decree of defeat. And the distinction is that that [decree of defeat] is for the purpose of receiving punishment at a later time, whereas the decree of victory is for the purpose of establishing the rule of res judicata. || 2.91

He states the grounds for determination when a document is in doubt:

The clearing of a doubtful document should be by handwriting and the like, / by plausibility, probability, evidence, marks, prior association, and title.

The clearing of a document that is doubtful as to whether it is genuine or ungenuine should be by handwriting and the like. It is cleared by another document written in his own hand; that is to say, if the characters are similar, then there is clearing. By the word "and the like" [is meant] clearing through the agreement of other documents written in the hand of the witnesses or the scribe. "Plausibility" is arrival through reasoning. "Probability" is the connection of place, time, and person with the wealth; plausibility means that it is plausible that this wealth belongs to this person in this place at this time. "Evidence" is the adducing of witnesses to it. "Mark" is an uncommon sign, such as the invocation śrī or the like. "Association" is the prior relationship between the plaintiff and defendant through mutual trust, such as giving and taking. "Title" is the probable means of acquisition of this much wealth. These are indeed the grounds. The syntax is: by these grounds, the clearing of a doubtful document should take place. But when a determination does not arise in the case of doubt regarding a document, then the determination must be made by witnesses. As Kātyāyana says:

When a document is challenged, the claimant must point to those who are inscribed upon it. / (KSm 283)

This statement relates to the availability of witnesses. But where witnesses are not available, there is the statement of Hārīta:

"This document was not made by me; a forgery has been caused by him"— / setting aside that document, the determination is then by divine trial. // (DhKo 374) || 2.92

When the document has thus been cleared and the debt has become payable, what should be done when one is unable to pay the entire debt? Therefore, he says:

Having paid, the debtor should write the money on the back of the document, / or the creditor should give an acknowledgement marked by his own signature.

When the debtor is unable to pay the entire debt, then having paid according to his capacity, he should endorse on the back of the previously executed document: "This much has been paid by me." Or the creditor should give—meaning write—on the back of that very document the money received, that is, obtained: "This much has been received by me." How? "Marked by his own signature," that is, marked with characters written in his own hand. Or the creditor should give to the debtor a separate receipt, marked with his own handwriting. || 2.93

What is to be done with the document when the debt is paid in full? Therefore, he says:

Having paid the debt, he should tear up the document, or for the purpose of clearance, should cause another to be made.

Having paid the entire debt, either in installments or all at once, he should tear up the previously executed document. When, however, the document is situated in an inaccessible country or is lost, then, for the sake of clear discharge—to terminate the status of being a debtor—the debtor should have another document executed by the creditor. The meaning is that the creditor should provide a certificate of clearance to the debtor according to the procedure stated earlier.

He states what is to be done when the entire debt is to be paid in the case of a debt attested by witnesses:

Or, that which was witnessed should be paid in the presence of witnesses.

A debt, however, that was witnessed should be paid in the presence of the original witnesses. // 2.94

Thus ends the section on documents.