DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52452#0058
30
NARADA.
actions of any kind. So if the case relates to cattle,
or to a woman, or to land, or to a debt, he is liable
to punishment, but his claim is not annulled.
26. Where the defendant denies the charge, the
claimant has to prove his accusation, unless the
denial should have been in the form called Pratya-
vaskandana.
*27. What the claimant has fully declared word
for word in the plaint that he must substantiate by
adducing evidence at the third stage of the trial.
* 28. Proof is said to be of two kinds, human and
divine. Human proof consists of documentary and
oral evidence. By divine proof is meant the ordeal
by balance and the other (modes of divine test).
29. Where a transaction has taken place by day,
of the plaintiff. This is particularly the case in one of the following
important actions : a case relating to a cow, female buffalo, or
other cattle; a case relating to a woman; a case relating to landed
property, i.e. a house, field, &c.; and a case relating to one of the
twenty-five subdivisions of the law of debt. In any case he is not
defeated, merely on account of an erroneous statement contained
in the suit. He does not lose the suit instituted by him, though he
is liable to punishment. A. The Mitakshara (p. 23) has a long
gloss on this rule of Narada, from which it appears that the
1 erroneous statements’ here referred to are statements made through
inadvertency, and that this rule applies to civil, as opposed to
criminal actions. Read vak^ale in the Sanskrit text.
26. An answer in the form called Pratyavaskandana is where
the defendant admits the facts adduced by the plaintiff, but explains
them so as not to be matter of accusation.
27. The claimant must prove, at the judicial investigation, what-
ever he has committed to writing in the plaint. A.
29. The divers kinds of divine test will be declared below. In
the case of all those transactions which take place during day-time
eye- and ear-witnesses are present. Documentary evidence, like-
wise, is generally available in such cases. Therefore, divine proof
should not be resorted to. Where a transaction is known to have
NARADA.
actions of any kind. So if the case relates to cattle,
or to a woman, or to land, or to a debt, he is liable
to punishment, but his claim is not annulled.
26. Where the defendant denies the charge, the
claimant has to prove his accusation, unless the
denial should have been in the form called Pratya-
vaskandana.
*27. What the claimant has fully declared word
for word in the plaint that he must substantiate by
adducing evidence at the third stage of the trial.
* 28. Proof is said to be of two kinds, human and
divine. Human proof consists of documentary and
oral evidence. By divine proof is meant the ordeal
by balance and the other (modes of divine test).
29. Where a transaction has taken place by day,
of the plaintiff. This is particularly the case in one of the following
important actions : a case relating to a cow, female buffalo, or
other cattle; a case relating to a woman; a case relating to landed
property, i.e. a house, field, &c.; and a case relating to one of the
twenty-five subdivisions of the law of debt. In any case he is not
defeated, merely on account of an erroneous statement contained
in the suit. He does not lose the suit instituted by him, though he
is liable to punishment. A. The Mitakshara (p. 23) has a long
gloss on this rule of Narada, from which it appears that the
1 erroneous statements’ here referred to are statements made through
inadvertency, and that this rule applies to civil, as opposed to
criminal actions. Read vak^ale in the Sanskrit text.
26. An answer in the form called Pratyavaskandana is where
the defendant admits the facts adduced by the plaintiff, but explains
them so as not to be matter of accusation.
27. The claimant must prove, at the judicial investigation, what-
ever he has committed to writing in the plaint. A.
29. The divers kinds of divine test will be declared below. In
the case of all those transactions which take place during day-time
eye- and ear-witnesses are present. Documentary evidence, like-
wise, is generally available in such cases. Therefore, divine proof
should not be resorted to. Where a transaction is known to have