Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c43.163

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c43.163

Language
English

v3.c43.163

Gautama states (V. 22) that the promises made by those who were carried away by rage or extreme joy or who were under a sense of dread or were ill or distressed or covetous or made by a minor (under 16) or an extremely old man or by one who is a fool (or under delusion) or was intoxicated or made by a lunatic may be revoked by them and in doing so they incur no sin or blame. Nārada²⁰⁶³ (Dattāpradānika, verses 9-10) amplifies this by stating 16 kinds of invalid gifts, viz. all those in Gautama (except those due to joy and covetousness) and also what is promised as a bribe, promises in jest, giving to a person mistaking him for another, gift induced by fraud or made by one who is not his own master, gift made to a man with the idea of getting something in return (but who does not do so), gift to a person who is unworthy, though he proclaimed himself to be worthy, and a gift for a purpose which is sinful. Kātyāyana (quoted by Aparārka p. 781) is just like Nārada and adds that if a man is in danger of life and promises the gift of all his wealth to whosoever may save him, he may resile from the promise. Aparārka p. 782 quotes verses from Bṛhaspati similar to Nārada's. Manu VIII. 165 declares that a sale, mortgage or gift brought about by fraud, or every transaction in which a trick is played, may be set aside (by the king). Though a gift made by one who is ill or distressed (ārta) is declared by Gautama to be revocable, Kātyāyana²⁰⁶⁴ states an exception viz. that when a man whether in sound health or suffering from a disease declares a gift for religious purposes and dies without completing it, then his son (or other heir) should be made to carry out that gift. This verse contains the germ of the idea of wills, since the mere declaration of the intention of a man to make a gift for religious purposes is here made enforceable after his death. Aparārka p. 782 conveys that the word 'son' is only illustrative and that every heir taking the estate is liable to make good the promise of the deceased.

Linked texts (5)