History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.434
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.434
- Language
- English
v4.c63.434.1
It is stated by Nārada II. 41 and 43 that, whether a party is defeated by his own admission or by his own conduct (i. e. because he adduces false witnesses or forged documents) or whether he is defeated after full trial and the adducing of proof, it is proper that the defeat should be declared by the sabhyas (the judges) and that a *Jayapatra* (a document of success i.e. a judgment) should be given to the successful party couched in fitting terms. Several verses of Nārada (quoted by Aparārka p. 684), Bṛhaspati (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 307 verse 19), Kāt. (259-265), Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha (q. by Mit. on Yāj. II. 91 and Aparārka p. 684) and Vyāsa (Sm. C. II. p. 57) lay down the contents of the judgment⁵⁹⁸. It was to contain a brief statement of the plaint, the reply, the evidence, the depositions of witnesses, discussion thereof, arguments, the smṛti texts applicable, the opinion of the sabhyas, the decision and the relief granted, and should be signed by the chief justice and bear the royal seal. Vas. 19. 10 refers to precedents also in the decision of cases and the awarding of punishments (*āgamād-dṛṣṭāntāc-ca*). The Mit. quotes a smṛti text (on Yāj. II. 91) that other members of the assembly (who are not judges) proficient in smṛti may also sign the judgment to show that the decision is acceptable to them also. But this was not absolutely necessary, as is made clear by the Vivādacandra p. 146. Kāt.
v4.c63.434.2
(256) applies the word *paścātkāra*⁵⁹⁹ (refutation) to a judgment containing the above particulars given after a complete contest, while he restricts the word *jayapatra* to a document (given by the judge) when a plaintiff becomes what is called *hīnavādī* (because he makes a change in his pleading or for similar cause) and when there has been no complete trial of an action; and such a document embodies only what happened. Kauṭ. (III. 19) appears to employ the word 'paścātkāra' in a somewhat different sense when he says 'the person, who, when charged with murder, does not reply to the charge that very day, stands refuted' (i. e. is found guilty)⁶⁰⁰. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 91) differing from Kāt. holds a jayapatra to be a judgment giving a summary of the plaint, the reply, the evidence and the decision, while when a plaintiff is defeated for change of pleading or for default of appearance or for non-prosecution the document stating this is called '*hīnapatraka*'. It is to be regretted that ancient jayapatras in Sanskrit have not yet been discovered. In 25 Calcutta Weekly Notes pp. CXLII-III Dr. Jolly communicated the substance of a *jayapatra*, couched in ancient Javanese, engraved on a copper-plate found in the island of Java and described by Dr. Brandes in a Dutch paper. That judgment is dated *śake* 849 (928 A. D.), relates to a dispute about a debt of one *suvarṇa* in which the plaintiff failed because he did not appear at the trial.
v4.c63.434.3
At the end there are the signatures of four witnesses and the document is styled jayapatra at the end. Vide for the same jayapatra J. B. O. R. S. vol. VII pp. 117 ff. The late Mr. K. P. Jayaswal published in 24 Calcutta Weekly Notes (pp. CXLIX-CLVI) a *jayapatra* (text, translation and remarks) granted by the Hindu court of Mithilā in *śake* 1716 (1794 A. D.) and in J. B. O. R. S. vol. VI pp. 246-258, which strictly conforms to the rules of procedure laid down in the smṛtis and nibandhas and is couched in dignified, technical and scrupulously formal language. It related to the ownership of a slave girl. Plaintiff at first made default in appearance; the judgment notes this and also refers to the restoration of the suit. The defendant raised an objection that a single witness to prove a matter was inadmissible. This objection was upheld. Then plaintiff prayed that he might be allowed to undergo an ordeal, but this request was disallowed as human proof was possible and plaintiff ultimately lost his suit. The judgment is written and signed by one Sacalamiśra, who was the chief justice, and is addressed to other members of the sabhā, called dharmādhyakṣas and paṇḍitas, seven of whom express their concurrence (*sammati*) at the top of the document. Vide Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society vol. XXVIII for 1942 for nine Sanskrit jayapatras from the courts of Mithilā in the 18th and 19th centuries.