Which party's evidence is prioritized when a claimant (Zayd) wins possession based on evidence, and the previous possessor (Amr) subsequently presents evidence for the same item?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
If it is held that the evidence of the outgoing party (Zayd, the initial winner) is prioritized, then Amr's subsequent evidence is not heard because Zayd's evidence has already been accepted over it. If it is held that the evidence of the incoming party (Amr, the previous possessor) is prioritized, the ruling depends on the nature of the initial judgment. If the judge ruled for Zayd because Amr had no evidence, the item reverts to Amr because evidence has now been established for him, and the possession was initially his. If the judge ruled for Zayd based on the principle of prioritizing the outgoing party's evidence, the ruling is not overturned because it resulted from a permissible area of juristic difference (*ijtihad*).
Supporting text
If Amr's initial evidence was rejected by the judge due to the witnesses' corruption (*fisq*), and the witnesses later reformed their conduct, the initial ruling for Zayd is still not overturned. This is because testimony once rejected for the corruption of the witness cannot be accepted upon a subsequent reinstatement of the witness's status.