History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.320

v4.c63.320

⁵²³ The maxim (in Yāj. II. 20) that on proof a part of a claim the whole may be held to be proved (vide above n 431) applies only where the opponent totally denies every item of the claim of the plaintiff. This is a presumption and the king or judge is not to be blamed for acting upon it in case of total denial, as said by Gaut. XI. 23 and 32 'न्यायाधिगमे तर्कोऽभ्युपायः। ... तस्माद्राजाऽचार्यावनिन्द्यौ.' This text of Yāj. is apparently in conflict with Kāt. 473 (q. by Mit. on Yāj. II. 20) 'in claims containing several items, the creditor (or plaintiff) secures a decree for as much out of them as he is able to establish by means of witnesses'. These two verses are sought to be reconciled in various ways by the Mit. (on Yāj. II. 20), the Sm. C. II. pp. 120-121, Vyavahāra-mātṛkā pp. 310-312 (where it criticizes the views of Yoglokā), V. P., pp. 98-102. It is impossible for want of space to go into these interpretations. The Mit. says that Kāt. 473 applies to a case where the son or the like being ignorant of the debt contracted by his father or the like says 'I do not know' i. e. pleads ignorance. In that case he does not deny (he is not *nihnava-vādin* but only *ajñānin*). The Vyavahāranirṇaya p. 68 explains Kāt. 473 in the same way and about 396 it adds that when he cites witnesses as supporting his entire claim and the witnesses depose only to a part of it or to more than he avers then his claim fails in its entirety but in sāhasa, theft and adultery it is otherwise.