History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.195.3

v4.c63.195.3

230 (q. in Sm. C. II. p. 51) provides that, in the case of a person guilty of *sāhasa* perpetrated in secret, investigation has to be made by divine proof. Kāt. 225–228 (q. by Mit. on Yāj. II. 22, Aparārka p. 629, Sm. C. II. pp. 53–54) lay down certain rules about preference among the several means of proof: whatever are declared as the conventional usages of the associations of traders, of guilds (of artisans) and of groups (of brāhmaṇas), the means of proving them are documents and not ordeals nor witnesses; enjoyment431a (or possession) alone is weightier in the case of the making and (the use of) doors and ways, as also in the case of water-courses and the like (i. e. in the case of easements) and not writing nor witnesses; in the case of things promised to be given but not given, when a decision is to be given in disputes of servants with masters, in the matter of taking back a thing after it is sold or when a person having purchased a thing does not pay the price, in gambling and prize fighting--when in these matters disputes arise the means of proof are witnesses and not documents nor ordeals. Marīci (q. by Sm. C. II. 60, V. P. p. 141) states that as regards the sale, mortgage, gift or partition of immoveable property a document (should be executed as it) enables the person (in whose favour it is executed) to acquire (clear) title and freedom from doubt⁴³² (even after the lapse of years).