57. Hārīta
Volume I: Part I pp. 543–545
Verses from Hārīta on vyavahāra deserve special treatment– some of his views set out, e. g. definition of vyavahāra, four aspects of vyavahāra, importance of writing, defects of plaint and reply, protection of long possession, when title by itself is decisive against long possession, five kinds of sureties, treatment of erring wives – his date between 400-700 A. D.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
57. Hārīta
57. Hārīta
The verse quotations from Hārīta on topics of vyavahāra deserve some treatment. He defines vyavahāra as that where- by the recovery of one's own wealth and the avoidance of ( doing ) the duties peculiar to another ( caste or class ) are effected in due course of law.1 He further says that that judicial proceeding is proper which is based on the dictates of dharmaśāstra and arthaśāstra, which is in conformity with the usages of respectable people and which is free from frauḍ2 Hārīta calls upon the king to know the śāstras, the duties of the varnas and of the lowest casteṣ3 He, like Nārada, said that vyavahāra had four aspects, each succeeding one prevailing against the preceding one,4 viz., dharma, vyavahāra, caritra, nṛpajñā. He attached the greatest importance to writing and said that a transaction consigned to writing is effective even after great lapse of time and that he who has a writing in his hands is entitled to possession (pro-bably in cases of mortgages and pledges ).5 He lays down very elaborate rules about the requisites and defects of plaints, about summoning the defendant, about the contents, faults and kinds of the defendant's reply, and about the bur-den of proof.6 He protects long possession of property even if it originated without title provided it had lasted for three generationṣ7 He says that the title is the decisive factor as to various kinds of possession, viz., when possession is forcibly taken by soldiers and freebooters, when a thing is stolen or kept concealed, when it was delivered through affection and friendship or when it was lent on hire, or when it was handed over for wearing or safe custody or was borrowed through friendship.8 To illustrate the relation of title and possession he uses a very apt figure, viz. just as a branch cannot be seen expanding in the sky unless it is supported by the roots, so title is the root and possession is its offshoot. According to him sureties are of five kinds,9 abhaya ( for keeping the peace ), pratyaya ( for confidence ), dāna ( return of money or carrying out one's obligations ), upastāna ( return of money lent on pledge ) and darśana ( for appearance ). He prescribed an absolute tutelage for women as regards the giving away of the husband's wealth and allow ed only maintenance to a young widow of improper conduct.10 But Harita was humane in his treatment of even erring wiveṣ He does not allow a husband to cast adrift an adulterous wife and prescribes that she should be given food to keep body and soul together and bare clotheṣ11
It appears from the above that Harita the jurist must have flourished nearly at the same time as Bṛhaspati and Kātyāyana, i. e. between 400 and 700 A. D.