History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.183.3

v4.c63.183.3

One of the faults is '*saṅkara*' (mixture or confusion or misjoinder of pleas in defence). For example, if the plaint alleges 'the defendant took gold, a hundred rupees, certain valuable clothes and a quantity of corn and has not returned any of them,' and the defendant's reply is 'I took the gold, I never took any rupees, the plaintiff donated the clothes to me, as to the corn plaintiff had already filed a suit against me and failed'. Here the reply contains all four varieties, viz. the first is a reply of admission, the 2nd is one of denial, the third is a special plea and the 4th is a plea of former judgment. This is a *saṅkara*. But it is not meant that this reply would not be allowed. All that is meant is that, as the burden of proof varies, the adducing of evidence will not be allowed simultaneously, but one after another. Vide Mit. on Yāj. II. 7, Par. M. III. pp. 77-80. These questions are concerned with cases in which several issues arise, the burden of proving some of which lies on the plaintiff and the burden of proving others lies on the defendant. If a defendant does not come forward to give a reply, the king or judge should make him give one by *sāma* (conciliatory words), *bheda* (threats) and other ways and if he does not give a reply for seven days after that, he may be declared to have been defeated and a decree may be passed against⁴²⁵ him. Kauṭ. (III. 1), Yāj. II. 9, Nār. I. 55, Kāt.