In the ancient days, the wise sages set forth the laws by which a king should govern matters of debt, property, and transactions among his people. It was declared that the king must ensure all matters brought before him are made to pay their dues, but those that remain unreported are not subject to his judgment. When disputes arose between the customs of tradition and the clarity of reason, it was reason that prevailed in matters of law. To resolve such disputes, three forms of proof were recognized: documentary evidence, possession, and the testimony of witnesses. If none of these could be produced, then an ordeal was prescribed to discern the truth. In every dispute, the reply or response carried greater weight than the accusation itself. When it came to deposits, acceptances, or purchases, the freshness or recency of the matter held greater strength. For land, if someone lost possession for twenty years—regardless of whether it was seen or declared—the loss was deemed final. For other types of property, enjoyment by another for ten years established their claim, except in cases of pledged items, boundaries, deposits, or immovable property. Deposits belonging to the king, to women, or to Brahmins, as well as wealth held as pledged property and similar cases, required that anyone misusing them must compensate the rightful owner. If a person was found punishable, they must pay the king an amount equal to what was taken, or as much as they could manage; any additional gain without prior possession must also be surrendered. Even when evidence was present, it was not considered strong unless there was some degree of possession. Only with pure, uncontested evidence did enjoyment of property gain validity. Enjoyment based on impure evidence was not authoritative; but if someone created the evidence and was involved in the matter, they were required to restore what was taken. In such cases, neither the son nor the grandson of the offender had a greater right to enjoyment. If another person was involved and had since died, their share was to be restored from their property. Enjoyment established without evidence was not valid; transactions arising from force or coercion were to be annulled. Similarly, transactions conducted by women, at night, in private chambers, outside, by enemies, or by those intoxicated, insane, afflicted, children, or acting out of fear, were not considered valid. Transactions made without proper connection were invalid, and if a pledge was lost, the king was responsible for paying the creditor the value of that pledge. If the value could not be determined by signs, an equivalent must be given. Property stolen by thieves was to be restored by the king to the people of the country. Interest was carefully regulated: with a guarantor, it was set at one-eightieth per month. Otherwise, it varied according to caste, ranging from one to five per hundred. For cattle, the rate was seventy; for women, the highest was eight times; for liquids, four, three, or twice as much for cloth, grain, and gold. For debts involving another village, the interest was ten; for overseas, even twenty. In all cases and for all types, the agreed-upon interest must be paid. A king who enforced a claim was not to be blamed; but anyone compelled to enforce a claim against the king was punishable and must pay the money. Then Agni spoke, saying: The debtor who has received money must repay the lender in proper order—first to a Brahmin, then to the king. If a debtor was compelled by the king, he must pay ten percent of what was recovered; if the full amount was obtained, the best debtor must pay five percent per hundred. A person of lower caste who was impoverished could be made to work off the debt, but a Brahmin in poverty should pay gradually as he was able. If the debtor refused payment when offered, and the money was deposited with a mediator, it remained there without accruing further interest. Those who received inheritance or took possession were responsible for paying the debt. The son who possessed property must pay the debt of a father who had no other sons. However, a wife was not liable for debts incurred by her husband or son, nor was a father liable for debts incurred by his son. Except for household purposes, a husband was not liable for debts incurred by his wife. Yet, the husband was responsible for debts of women whose livelihood depended on him—such as cowherds, strongmen, performers, washerwomen, hunters, or prostitutes. Any debt incurred by a woman, whether jointly with her husband or alone, must be paid by her or her husband; no other woman was obliged to pay such a debt. If the father was absent, deceased, or afflicted by misfortune, the debt should be paid by his sons or grandsons, provided it was substantiated by witnesses. Debts arising from drinking, gambling, fines, taxes, or what remained after such expenses, as well as gifts made without purpose, were not to be paid by the sons. Among brothers, spouses, fathers, and sons, a debt that was guaranteed must be accepted by those who were undivided, as remembered in tradition. In cases involving appearance, guarantee, or payment, responsibility was prescribed; but if a pledge was false, even the sons of the one who made the false pledge must pay. Where a guarantee or surety was given, if the guarantor died or was unable to fulfill, the sons were not required to pay; only those who remained for payment must do so. If there were many guarantors, they should pay the money according to their share; but among those under one authority, payment was at the lender’s discretion. If a guarantor had openly paid the lender, the debtor must repay him double; this was the rule. For one's own offspring, women, cattle, and grain, double repayment was prescribed; for cloth, fourfold; and for liquids, eightfold. A pledge was forfeited if double the amount was not repaid; if lost due to time or circumstance, it was forfeited, but if enjoyed for its fruit, it was not lost. A pledge that was hidden or enjoyed did not accrue interest, even if there was benefit; if lost, it must be returned unless lost by act of God or king. If, after accepting a pledge, the pledged item was destroyed or rendered useless, the lender became entitled to a share of wealth or the pledged money. Property pledged for conduct or as security, with interest, must be repaid; property pledged for truthfulness must be repaid double. When the lender was present, the pledge must be released; otherwise, a penalty applied. If the purpose was fulfilled, the lender could reclaim the pledge. The value set at the time or the original price should remain without interest; or, if not held, it could be sold with witnesses. Thus, these laws ensured justice, clarity, and fairness in all dealings, preserving harmony and righteousness within the kingdom.