History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.434.1

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.