History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.442

v4.c63.442

It would be necessary to see in what cases review of judgment was allowed. The general rule is stated by Manu IX. 233, 'whenever any legal proceeding has been completed (*tīrita*) or has been carried out so far as to recover a fine from the defeated party, a wise king shall not annul it' (at his mere will or pleasure or through greed). The words 'tīrita' and 'anuśiṣṭa' have been variously explained⁶⁰³. The word 'tīrita' is very ancient and occurs in the Delhi Pillar Edict IV of Aśoka (E. I. Vol. II. p. 253) as 'tīlita-daṇḍānam' qualifying men imprisoned in jails. Medhātithi and Kullūka explain them as 'decided according to the rules of the śāstra' and 'taken so far as to recover fine from the unsuccessful party' respectively. Kāt. (495) defines them differently: "When a certain side is decided by the sabhyas themselves (without the examination of witnesses) to be either true or false, it is said to be tīrita and that matter or side is called 'anuśiṣṭa' which is declared (to be true or false) on the testimony of witnesses." The lexcion called Vaijayantī seems to have Kāt. in mind and defines 'tīrita' as a perverse decision given by the sabhyas themselves and 'anuśiṣṭa' occurs where the evidence of witnesses makes what is true appear as false (Bhūmikāṇḍa, vaiśyādhyāya, verses 11-12). Nār. II. 65 (S. B. E. vot 33 p. 22) employs the two words, which the Mit. on Yāj. II. 306 respectively explains as (tīrita) 'decided by reliance on documents and witnesses but not carried so far as to recover a fine', and ('anuśiṣṭa') as 'decided so far as to recover a fine from the defeated party'. Vide Aparārka p. 866 and V. P. p. 90 for explanations.