History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.746

v4.c63.746

This title is also called *dattāpradānika*⁸¹⁵ (lit. that which is concerned with the non-delivery or resumption of a gift). Nār. VII. 1 defines it as that title where a man desires to resume what has been given by him because it has been improperly (in a manner opposed to law) given by him. Nār. (VII. 2) divides this title into four topics viz. what may not be given, what may be given, what are valid gifts and what are invalid gifts. Nār. VII. 3-5 and Bṛ. (SBE vol. 33 p. 342 verse 2) state that there are eight things that cannot be given (*adeya*) viz. an *anvāhita*, a deposit, *yācitaka*, a pledge, property jointly owned with others, a deposit, son and wife, the entire property in the case of one who has offspring, and what has been already promised to another. Vide Kauṭ. III. 16, Yāj. II. 175⁸¹⁶ for a similar but more compendious statement, and Kāt. 638. These cannot be given either because they are not one's absolute property or because the gift of them is forbidden by the sages. In the case of even those who hold that one has ownership over one's son or wife, the gift of them is not possible because it is forbidden, just as though one owns rice, *yavas* and *māṣa* beans, one cannot make offerings of māṣa because the veda prohibits their use in the words 'ayajñiyā vai māṣāḥ' (q. by Śabara on Jai. VI. 3. 20). So son and wife cannot be given on account of the prohibition in the smṛtis. The general rule of what may be given is stated by Yāj. II 175, Nār. VII. 6 and Bṛ. (SBE 33 p. 342 verse 3), Kāt. 640 viz. whatever is absolutely one's own excepting that required for the maintenance of one's family may be given.⁸¹⁷ Manu (XI. 9-10), Nār. VII. 6 and Bṛ. (quoted in H. of Dh. vol. II pp. 850-851 n. 2007) condemn those who stint their family or servants in order to be charitable to others and say that he who does so would incur sin. Manu XI. 7 (=Nār. VII. 7), Vas. VIII. 10, Yāj. I. 124, Viṣṇu Dh. S. 59.8 prescribe that he alone who has property sufficient to provide for three years' maintenance for those whom he is bound to maintain or has more wealth than that may drink *soma* i. e. may engage in a soma sacrifice (which costs much).