What is the ruling on the original owner taking back property that was stolen and secured by the thief?

Primary text

If a person steals property meeting the threshold for *qata'* (amputation) or usurps it and secures it, and the original owner then breaches the security and reclaims his property, there is no amputation (*qata'*) upon the owner. This applies whether the owner took it back as a thief or otherwise, because he was taking back his own wealth. This ruling is held because the action involves reclaiming one's own property.