Hindu titles of law

In the Dharmaśāstras and Hindu law, more generally, there are usually eighteen titles of law. The titles of law make up the grounds for litigation and the performance of the legal process, usually by the king and his Brahmin counselors. The eighteen titles of law according to Manu are: “(i) the first is the non-payment of debts; (ii) deposits; (iii) sale without ownership; (iv) partnerships; (v) delivery and non-delivery of gifts; (vi) non-payment of wages; (vii) breach of contract; (viii) cancellation of a sale or purchase; (ix) disputes between owners and herdsman; (x) the Law on boundary disputes; (xi) verbal assault; (xii) physical assault; (xiii) theft; (xiv) violence; (xv) sexual crimes against women; (xvi) Law concerning husband and wife; (xvii) partition of inheritance; and (xviii) gambling and betting.” These reasons vary slightly among authors, and many of them are covered more in depth.

18 Titles of law

i. Non-payment of debts

Concerning the eighteen titles of law, the non-payment of debt is almost always listed first. According to Davis this is because, “A very old practice of textual organization within Dharmaśāstra and other textual genres of Sanskrit calls the first procedure or topic to be described the archetype (prakrti) and the subsequent procedures or topics the ectypes (vikrti). We saw this practice in the placement of the Brahmin as the archetype as a matter of textual concision. The Non-payment of Debts is the archetype for the other titles of law, not only because its description overlaps with and in some respects encompasses the contents of the other titles but also because debt as its thematic content pervades the subsequent titles. In terms of overlap, questions about witness, autonomy, competence, documentation, and contractual securities are all assumed in and carry over to discussions of the later titles.”

iii. Sale without ownership

In the History of the Dharmaśāstras Vol. III, P.V. Kane states, “According to the Nārada-Smṛti VII. 1 and the Smṛti of Bṛhaspati when a person, who holds an open deposit, a sealed deposit, an article bailed for delivery to another, stolen property, an article borrowed for some festival, a pledge, or property lost by a stranger and found (by him), sells it in secret (or behind the back of the owner) it is to be considered as a sale by one who is not the rightful owner.”

iv. Partnerships

Partnerships in Hindu law are any venture that results in two or more people working together. The śāstras have a lot to say about the different kinds of partnerships, whom one should enter into a partnership with, and rules for governing partnerships with respect to profits, losses, and quarrels among partners. For example, the Smṛti of Bṛhaspati states regarding potential partners, “that a man should carry on a joint business with other persons of good family, that are clever, active, intelligent (or educated), familiar with cons, skilled in controlling (expenditure) and income, honest and valiant (or enterprising) and that joint undertakings like trade should not be carried on by prudent men with persons (partners) who are weak or lazy or afflicted with disease or are unlucky or destitute (of money).” Kane states, “It is interesting to note that the ancient Dharmasutras of Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana are silent about partnerships, and that Manu lay down rules about the distribution of fees among the priests at a sacrifice ad that in one verse he remarks that the same principles are to be applied in all matters where men work conjointly.”

v. Non-delivery of gifts

Non-delivery or resumption of gift is referred to as "dattanapakarma" in the smṛtis. The Nārada-Smṛti divides the title into four categories, “what may be given, what may not be given, what are valid gifts, and what are invalid gifts.” The Smṛti of Kātyāna as reconstructed by P.V. Kane, is useful in elaborating and giving insight to this title of law. It states regarding invalid gifts, “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 masa beans, one cannot make offerings of masa because the veda prohibits their use.”

x. Boundary disputes

Boundary disputes are called "ksetrajavivāda", or disputes relating to fields. The Nāradasmṛti defines boundary disputes as, “dispute with regard to land in which questions about dikes or embankments, the boundaries of fields, ploughed land and fallow land.”. There are six causes of boundary dispute in most of the sastras, and the Smṛti of Kātyāna states them as: “claiming more land, claim that a person is entitled to less than he possesses, claim to a share, denial of a share, seizing possession when previously there was none, and boundary.”

xi. Abuse and xii. Assault

P.V. Kane states, “Vākpārusya, daṇḍapārusya, steya, strisangrahana, and sahāsa are five titles out of 18 that are concerned with what may be called criminal matters or crimes in modern nomenclature.” They represent, respectively, abuse and defamation, assault, theft, adultery or unlawful intercourse with a woman, and violence. This section will deal with the first two.

The Nāradasmṛti says vākpārusya is defined as, “abusive words that loudly proclaim censure of another’s country, caste, family and the like and that cause mental pain or offence to that man.” The Nāradasmṛti further defines three kinds of defamation, “niṣṭhura (reproachful such as calling a man a fool or a rogue), aślīla (obscene or insulting), and tīvra (mercilessly severe such as charging a man with such grave sins as brahmāna-murder or drinking liquor) and that each punishment for each later one is more severe that for each preceding one.”

To define Daṇḍapārusya, or assault, the Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra begins by saying assault, “comprises touching, threatening to strike and actually striking another.” Going slightly further, “The Nārada-Smṛti XVIII. 4–6 defines it as injuring the limbs of another with the hand, foot, weapon or other means (such as stones) or defiling or causing pain by (bringing) ashes and similar substances in contact with another…assault may be one of three kinds viz. mild, middling and highly punishable.” It is even explained in the Yājñavalkyasmṛti that causing injury to animals and trees would fall under this category. Manu contends that the punishment should be commensurate with that of the harm caused to the victim.

xiii. Theft

Theft, or streya, is defined by the Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra as “depriving a man of his wealth either clandestinely or openly and either by night or by day.” The Nārada-Smṛti defines theft as, “derivation of wealth by various means from people that are asleep, careless or intoxicated.” Like assault, there are varying degrees of theft depending on what was stolen. The three kinds are: “trifling (when earthen-ware, seats, cots, wood, hides, grass, beans in pods or cooked food is stolen), middling (when the theft relates to clothes except silken ones, animals except cows and bulls, metals except gold, rice and barley), and grave or high (when gold jewels, silken cloth, women, men, cattle, elephants, horses, and the wealth of brāhmanas or temples is stolen).” There are several texts that agree on the definition of a thieve including the Manu-Smṛti, Nārada-Smṛti, and the Smṛti of Bṛhaspati. Their definition contends that, “thieves are traders who employ false weights and balances, gamblers, quacks, bribers of sabhyas, prostitutes, those who profess to arbitrate, those who manufacture imitation articles, those who subsist by prognosticating good fortune or portents or by magic or palmistry, false witnesses, etc.”

See also

• Monarchy in Ancient India