History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.210

v4.c63.210

Nār.⁴³⁸ IV. 136, Viṣṇu. Dh. S. VII. 11 and Kāt. (252) require that a document is held valid which is not adverse to the custom of the country, the contents of which follow the rules regarding pledges (and other transactions) and the sequence of the sense and of the words in which is not contradictory or confusing. Sm. C. II. p. 59 applies the word⁴³⁹ *pañcārūḍha* (on which five are recorded) to documents that are signed by the creditor, the debtor, two witnesses and the scribe. The Sarasvatīvilāsa p. 114 holds that *pañcārūḍhatva* consists in having the creditor, debtor, witnesses (as one item), scribe and the matter to be written. Hārīta and Vyāsa (q. in Sm. C. II. p. 59) employ the dual (*sākṣiṇau*), while Yāj. II. 87 employs the plural. Therefore ordinarily two witnesses sufficed, but in very important writings there should be more witnesses. Viśvarūpa reads ‘*asamāḥ*’ in Yāj. II. 87 and requires three witnesses as the minimum. Nār. IV. 137, Viṣṇu⁴⁴⁰ Dh. S. VII. 6-10, Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 307 v. 23.), Kāt. (271) state that a document is invalid that is executed by a person intoxicated, by one already charged (with an offence), by a woman, a minor, that has been brought about by threats or deceit or coercion, by one dying, by one diseased, by a lunatic, or by those that are dependent. Viṣṇu Dh. S. (VII. 8-9) and Kāt. 273 (q. by V. M. p. 338, Aparārka p. 686, Par. M. III. p. 131) state that a document may be held invalid owing to defects in the witnesses or in the scribe or to the fraud of the creditor or executant.