[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v4.c63.686 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.686 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.686 - **Language:** English ### [v4.c63.686.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v4.c63.686.1) \*Nikṣepa\* or \*upanidhi\* was a bailment made in trust and differed from an \*ādhi\* in this that the former was not given by way of security for a debt or for collecting interest but in confidence for safe custody.⁷⁷¹ Bṛ. (SBE vol. 33 p. 332 verse 2) says that such a deposit is made with another when one is leaving one's home, or through fear of the king or for depriving one's kinsmen.⁷⁷² Manu VIII. 179 (= Nār. V. 2) says that one should entrust a deposit to a person who is born of a good family, is well-conducted, knows \*dharma\*, speaks the truth, has a large family, is wealthy and straightforward. The person with whom a deposit is made generally receives no personal benefit from it; hence the smṛtis (such as Bṛ. in SBE 33 p. 333 verses 6-8) extol the holder⁷⁷³ of a deposit made in trust to be as meritorious as one who makes gifts of gold or other inferior metals or clothes and condemn the misappropriation of a deposit or the losing of it through negligence as very sinful. The idea is that no one is bound to accept a deposit, but when a person accepts it, his primary duty is to preserve it with care and the next duty is to return it at the time agreed or on demand. The obligation arises from the trust reposed in a person. The rights of the bailee are limited as compared to those of the mortgagee or pledgee, but the very fact of his custody in trust clothes him with certain rights. The amount of care required of the depositee is the same as in the case of an \*ādhi\*, viz. ### [v4.c63.686.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.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). ### [v4.c63.686.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v4.c63.686.3) In doing so however he must not return it to one of several heirs, but to all or in the presence of all. The loss of a deposit may be due to the fact that the bailee consumes it by using it, or to the bailee's negligence or to his ignorance. In these cases the bailee was made to reimburse the bailor for the loss. But Kāt. (597)⁷⁷⁸ makes a difference, viz. when a bailee consumes the deposit by use he should be made to pay the price with interest, when he loses it through negligence he is to pay only the price (but without interest) and if he loses through ignorance, then he is to pay a little less (i. e. less by one-fourth) than the price. Vide Bṛ. (S B E vol. 33 p. 333 verse 11) and Nār. V. 8. If a bailor knowing the proposed bailee to be a careless man deposits his goods with him, the bailee is not liable even if the goods are lost from any cause whatever (Kāt. 599).⁷⁷⁹ If immediately on demand by the depositor the bailee does not return the thing deposited or it is lost after demand from any cause whatever (including act of God or king), the bailee has to return the thing or the price of the thing (when lost) and also is liable to be fined by the king in the same amount (Yāj. II. 66, Nār. V. 7). If the bailee makes use of the article bailed without the permission of the bailor, he should be fined by the king and should be made to return the thing bailed with interest (Yāj. II. 67, Nār. V. 8). In the Rāj. T. (VIII. ### [v4.c63.686.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v4.c63.686.4) 124–157) occurs the story of a person who had deposited one \*lakh\* of \*dīnāras\* with a merchant and had withdrawn some money from time to time. It further states that, when the balance was demanded, the merchant furnished a statement of accounts giving a list of fictitious items of withdrawals for many years with interest and showing that very little of the deposit was left. The king brought home the fraud to the merchant and ordered that the original deposit being used by the merchant should bear interest. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v4.c63.686](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v4.c63.686) · Pramāṇa