What is the ruling if one partner claims their co-partner manumitted their share, and the co-partner denies it, when the defendant (the alleged manumitter) is wealthy?

Primary text

If one partner claims his co-partner manumitted his share, and the other denies it, and the defendant is wealthy, only the share of the claimant (the one asserting the manumission) is freed due to the defendant's admission of the freedom resulting from the ripple effect (sarayah) of the co-partner's manumission. The defendant then owes the claimant half the value. The freed portion does not retroactively free the other half because the defendant does not admit to having manumitted the claimant. Freedom is established by the admission of the claimant's freedom, not by the defendant's act of manumission toward him. Furthermore, the defendant has no claim of loyalty (wala') over the claimant because he denies the act of manumission.