The Fourfold Subdivision of the Reply

It is a well known fact, that in all sources dealing with ancient Hindu adjective law four different types of legal reply have been neatly distinguished (Kane 1930–62: 3.300–301). This fourfold subdivision of the reply might perhaps even be said to be one of the more stable and constant factors among the endless series of enumerations and subdivisions to be found in the ancient Indian law books.

Inasmuch as a clear insight into the said four types of reply will prove necessary in order to fully appreciate the intricacies called forth by the mixed reply, at first the main types of reply shall be briefly defined and illustrated here.

In the first place, confession (satya, saṃpratipatti) is the statement in which the defendant acknowledges the truth of the facts mentioned in the plaint (Vyāsa 1.24).

Secondly, at least as far as the age of the Dharmaśāstras is concerned, a reply is said to be a reply by way of denial (mithyā, mithyottara) when the defendant contradicts the facts referred to in the plaint (KS 167).

Later on, at the time when Dharmaśātra literature —and all other branches of learning as well— becomes deeply influenced by the concepts of Indian logic (Nyāya) a much more subtle definition comes to the fore.