History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s42.2

v1.c6.s42.2

A few of the views of Saṁvarta on topics of vyavahāra may be noted here. According to him oral testimony when in opposition to writing was to be discarded.⁴⁹² This is in striking agreement with section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. He says that if houses and fields are being enjoyed (by one person as against another) when the king is there (i. e. when the central government is strong and there is no anarchy), then it is possession that counts and not mere writing (i. e. possession will be protected and not mere paper title without possession).⁴⁹³ He lays down that no interest was to be allowed if not stipulated for in certain cases, viz., on strīdhana (when used by the husband), on interest, on deposit (as long as it is not lost or deteriorated) and in suretyship.⁴⁹⁴ He enumerates ten wrongs (*aparādhas*) of which the king was to take cognisance *suo motu* without any private person's complaint, viz., restraint of the defendant (before judgment), obstruction of the public road, women conceiving in adultery, becoming rich without any ostensible means, destruction of a meeting-hall and of trees and crops, kidnapping of maidens, sinning Brāhmaṇas, champerty and maintenance, destruction of the roads where tolls are to be paid, the danger of robbers, rape, injury to cows and Brāhmaṇas.⁴⁹⁵ He prescribed that disputes were not be investigated on the full moon and new moon day, and on the 14th and 8th *tithis*.