PRAYAG SAHU Vs. KASI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question of law raised in this case is whether a decree for costs passed against a Mitakshara father, who has failed to substantiate a claim made, to some property, is binding on his sons who have succeeded by right of survivorship on his death. It is contended that the debt in this case comes within the word danda or fine in text of Yajnnavalkya quoted in the Mitakshara Chapter VI, Section III, Verse 47, Tarkalankar's Edition, "Nor is he bound to pay any unpaid fines or tolls or idle gifts" or within the meaning of ryubuharika" in the text of Ushanas which has been translated variously as not "necessary" (for life) by Pandit Girish Chandra Tarkarlankar, as unusual or not sanctioned by law" by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court in Durbar Durbar V/s. Khachar Harsur 32 B. 348 : 10 Bom. L.R. 297, as "improper" by Syama Charan in Vybastha Tarpon, 3 Edition, page 129.

(2.) Words used by Hindu law-givers must be understood in the sense in which the authors may be supposed to have used them. Hindu Courts of Justice did not allow costs to successful litigants but imposed upon the party who took a false plea a fine payable to the King equal to the claim: see Yajnabbalka, Chapter 11, Verse 11.

(3.) If the defendant denies4he claim of the plaintiff and the latter prove his claim by witnesses then the defendant will pay the plaintiff's claim and an equal penalty to the King." Also Manu, Chapter VIII, Verse 59 "In the double of that sum, which the defendant falsely denies or on which the complainant falsely declares shall those two men, wilfully offending against justice, be fined by the King." So that costs awarded against a defeated litigant could not be danda or fine within the meaning of the text.