History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.573

v4.c63.573

The rule of what is called *dānduput* in modern times expressed laconically by Manu VIII. 151 and Gaut. XII. 28 is this that 'the amount of principal and interest recoverable at one time in a lump sum cannot be more than double of the money lent'. As a debt was recoverable not only from a man himself but also from his three descendants and as therefore there was practically no period of limitation for bringing a suit for money lent, creditors had great temptations to allow interest to go on increasing. Therefore the sages who condemned the profession of usury and particularly waiting long for the increase of interest⁶⁹¹ laid down that whatever the length of time during which the principal was at interest and whatever the rate of interest might have been, the creditor could recover by suit in a lump sum only double of the money lent. This acted as a great check on the creditors' rapacity. Several propositions are laid down in the Mit.,⁶⁹² the Vyavahāramayūkha and other digests that graft exceptions on the general rule, and that flow from the interpretation of Manu VIII. 151 in both readings. The first modification is that if interest is received every day, month or year and is not claimed in a lump sum at one time then the total interest received by a creditor may be even several times more than the principal lent. Bṛ. provides (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 321 verse 11) that every day interest or bodily interest and *bhogalābha* may be taken by the creditor (irrespective of the question of *dvaiguṇya*) as long as the principal is not paid⁶⁹³. (2) Further, if after the interest has accumulated for some time, there is a fresh agreement with the same debtor whereby the sum lent together with interest due is taken as the principal and interest is agreed to be paid on the amount so arrived at, then the total recoverable after this fresh agreement may exceed double the original sum lent. Manu (VIII. 154-155) and Bṛ. (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 331 verse 60) allow such a fresh agreement. But if the debtor does not make a fresh agreement then the rule of *dāmdupat* would apply. (3) If after the sum due to the creditor has become double of the principal lent, the creditor accepts another man as the debtor (who takes the liability on himself), then the creditor may recover from the substituted debtor after the lapse of years an amount which may be more than double of the sum originally lent. (4) If the debtor pays a part of the principal or if the creditor makes a concession (called '*reka*' in the Mit. on Yāj. II. 39) and reduces the total recoverable or if the debtor receives an additional amount of money (called '*seka*' in the Mit.) and it is added to the original amount borrowed and a fresh agreement is made between the parties to put the whole to interest, then the rule of dāmdupat would not apply.