The beginning of Kauṭilīyārthaśāstra 3.1 can be summarized as follows:

3.1.1 dharmasthās… vyāvahārikān arthān kuryuḥ.

3.1.2 pratiṣedhayeyur vyavahārān

(a) tirohitān [see Appendix]

3.1.6 …tirohitāḥ sidhyeyuḥ;

(b) antaragārakṛtān

3.1.7 …antaragārakṛtāḥ sidhyeyuḥ;

(c) naktakṛtān

3.1.8 …rātrikṛtāḥ sidhyeyuḥ;

(d) araṇyakṛtān

3.1.9 …araṇyakṛtāḥ sidhyeyuḥ;

(e) upadhikṛtān

3.1.10 …upadhikṛtāḥ sidhyeyuḥ;

(f) upahvarakṛtān

3.1.11 …upahvarakṛtāḥ sidhyeyuḥ.

The main sections of this passage have been translated by Shamasastry:

by Meyer:

and by Kangle:

AŚ 3.1.2 obviously provides a list of exceptions to 3.1.1. If 3.1.1

formulates the general rule for vyāvahārikān arthān, we may, then, conclude that 3.1.2: tirohita∘… ∘upahvarakṛtān vyavahārān, refers to avyāvahārikān arthān.

To be sure, the term avyāvahārika does not occur in classical Sanskrit legal literature; but is has been used extensively in modern Hindu law of debts. The basis of the entire theory of avyāvahārika debts is a stanza attributed either to Vyāsa or Uśanas (DhK 1.714):

Kane rightly points out: “What is meant by ‘debts that are not vyāvahārika’ has presented the greatest difficulty to the medieval commentators and digests and also to modern courts” (1930–1962: 3.447). Colebrooke was the first one to propose a translation for avyāvahārika debts: “any debt for a cause repugnant to good morals” (Colebrooke 1798 1: 211).