History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.686.2

v4.c63.686.2

he is to take the same care of it as he takes of his own goods and is not liable if the deposit is lost (along with his own property) through act of God or the king or is stolen by thieves (Manu VIII. 189, Yāj. II. 66, Nār. V. 9 and 12, Bṛ. in S.B.E. 33 p. 333, verse 10, Kāt. 593 ).⁷⁷⁴ In the Mṛcchakaṭika Cārudatta accepts liability for the loss of the ornaments deposited with him by Vasantasenā, though they were stolen, because of his high sense of chivalry and of his idea that proper care was not taken by him or his friend. But Nār. V. 9 is careful to add that the loss through *vis major* or through theft must be real and not fraudulently brought about.⁷⁷⁵ Nār. V. 6 and Bṛ. (in SBE 33 p. 334 verse 14) state that a deposit may be made in the presence of witnesses or without them, that it should be returned in the same way and condition in which it was made and that if there is a dispute, it may be settled by ordeal (when there are no witnesses ).⁷⁷⁶ The article deposited must be returned in the same condition (as regards seal &c.) in which it was handed over (Yāj. II. 65). It must also be returned to the man himself who made the deposit and not to his co-owners (Manu VIII. 185, Br. in SBE 33 p. 333 verse 9 ).⁷⁷⁷ He is estopped from recognising the title of any one except the depositor, as in section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. But if the bailor be dead the bailee can return it of his own accord without demand to the co-owners (Manu VIII. 186 = Nār. V. 10).