History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.596

v4.c63.596

The general rule was that an ādhi (whether of movable or immovable property) that was *bhogya* carried no interest but the profits were to be taken in lieu of interest (vide Kāt. 516)⁷¹⁰ and the debtor would in this case get back his property on paying the principal. Kauṭ. (III. 12) states⁷¹¹ that immovable property mortgaged may be such that it can be enjoyed only by expending labour over it or without expending one's own labour the creditor may enjoy the fruits or income thereof. But as noted by Vyāsa and Bharadvāja⁷¹² the stipulation about a *bhogya ādhi* may be that the income from the property is to be taken as in payment of the whole interest and part of the principal. This latter is called *sapratyaya-bhogyādhi* and the other variety where the income is taken in lieu of interest only is called *apratyaya-bhogyādhi*. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 64 after citing a text of Bṛhaspati refers to these two varieties (though it does not use these terms) and adds that if the income is not sufficient to meet the interest wholly then the debtor may have to pay the principal and the unpaid part of the debt before redeeming his property. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 64) states that the appropriate name ‘kṣayādhi’ is given by the people to what is called (above) as *sapratyaya-bhogyādhi*. Bharadvāja states that on taking an account (where there is an agreement to apply the income towards interest and reduction of the principal) if the creditor has been overpaid he is to restore the overpaid amount to the debtor and that if a portion of the principal remains unpaid the debtor has to repay it.