Is a disposition (sale or mortgage) of a slave valid if the disposer believed the slave was usurped property but later found it to be their own property?

Primary text

The disposition, such as mortgaging or selling a slave, is valid if the seller or mortgagor initially believed the slave was usurped property (ghasb), but it subsequently turns out that the property belonged to them. Examples include mortgaging a father's slave whom the son believed was usurped, but the father had died making the son the heir, or if an agent bought a slave for someone, and the principal subsequently sold or mortgaged that slave believing it still belonged to the original master when the disposition occurred after the agency purchase. The disposition is valid because the act originated from the recognized owner and corresponded with their ownership at the time of the act, similar to a case where the owner knew their status.