History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.183.2

v4.c63.183.2

Where the defendant accepting as correct the matters (or facts) set out by the plaintiff raises a plea, that is a reply of special plea.⁴²³ The same is designed by some as *ādhārya* or *ādharya* (rendering futile) of the plaint. For example, where plaintiff avers that defendant took one hundred rupees and defendant accepts that fact but adds either that he later on returned them or that they were really donated to him, that is a reply of special plea. Where a person though defeated in a (former) proceeding again causes a plaint to be written and is addressed (answered) with the words 'you were formerly defeated', that is a reply of former judgment. That there was a former judgment between the same parties may be proved by citing the judges or arbitrators or by citing other witnesses or by producing the writing itself i. e. the copy of the judgment (Kāt. 172).⁴²⁴ In a reply of admission there are only two stages of *vyavahāra* viz. the plaint and the reply; there is no need of proof (so there is no *kriyāpāda*) and the plaintiff succeeds as a matter of course (and so there is no necessity of a regular judgment, *nirṇaya*). Kāt. (173–190) states at great length the faults of a reply and also what are not proper replies. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 7), Aparārka pp. 613–614, Sm. C. II. pp. 43–46 and other digests quote long passages from Kāt., Bṛ., Hārīta, Vyāsa and others on faults of *uttara* and illustrate them at length. These have to be omitted for want of space.