What is the ruling when one party presents evidence of usurpation while the other presents evidence of an admission of ownership?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Claims and Evidences
Primary text
If one party provides evidence that the house was usurped from him, and the other party provides evidence that the possessor admitted ownership to him, the house belongs to the dispossessed party. There is no contradiction between these evidences because they can be reconciled: the possessor may have usurped it from the first party and subsequently admitted ownership to the second party. The usurper's admission is invalid. This is the position of Al-Shafi'i. Therefore, the property is delivered to the dispossessed party, and nothing is to be compensated to the one to whom ownership was admitted, because the evidence, not the possessor's actions, separated the parties.
Supporting text
If the possessor admitted ownership to one party, or admitted that he usurped it from a third party, he must deliver it to the one to whom he first admitted ownership, and he is liable for its compensation to the other party, because his initial admission created a separation between him and the second claimant.