When an honest intermediary (Adil) claims to have paid the debt to the mortgagee (Murtahin), but the mortgagee denies it, whose word is accepted regarding the principal debtor (Rahin)?

Primary text

The jurist Qadi and Abu al-Khattab hold that the word of the honest intermediary is accepted concerning the principal debtor, but it is not accepted concerning the mortgagee. This is the view of Al-Shafi'i. This is because the intermediary is the agent of the principal debtor for paying the debt to the mortgagee, but is only an agent for the mortgagee in safekeeping. Thus, the intermediary's statement is not accepted against the mortgagee regarding matters outside the scope of his agency for the mortgagee, similar to when an agent mandated to pay a debt claims delivery to the creditor. Under the first opinion, if the mortgagee swears (denying receipt), the principal debtor may seek recourse against whomever he wishes (the intermediary or the mortgagee). If recourse is sought against the intermediary, the intermediary cannot seek recourse against the principal debtor, because the debtor claims the intermediary unjustly took the money, analogous to wrongful seizure. If recourse is sought against the principal debtor, there are different views on whether the principal debtor may then seek recourse against the intermediary, depending on whether the payment was witnessed by the principal debtor or made in the principal debtor's absence without proof.