Zend Avesta Part 03

SR No.: 007673
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: L H Mills
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1887
Total Pages: 2618
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 49 MB

Page 1223

30
NÂRADA.
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 Pratyavaskandana.
*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
erroneous statements' here referred to are statements made through inadvertency, and that this rule applies to civil, as opposed to criminal actions. Read vâkkhale 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.
24. The claimant must prove, at the judicial investigation, whatever 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, likewise, is generally available in such cases. Therefore, divine proof should not be resorted to. Where a transaction is known to have
Digitized by Google