What is the ruling when a claimant sues the possessor, claiming the possessor bought the share from the non-resident owner, and the possessor denies this, claiming to be an agent or a custodian?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Preemption (Shuf'ah)
Primary text
If one claims against the possessor that he purchased the share which is in his possession, and the possessor denies this, stating he is merely an agent or a custodian for the owner, the possessor's statement is accepted along with his oath. If the claimant provides clear evidence (*bayyinah*), the judge rules based on that evidence. Abu Hanifa and Al-Shafi'i hold this view. Abu Hanifa's acceptance is maintained even though he generally does not rule against an absent person, because the ruling here is directly against the present person regarding the obligation of preemption and the necessity of removing the property from his possession, with the ruling against the absent person occurring implicitly.
Supporting text
If no evidence exists and the claimant demands the possessor's oath, and the possessor refrains from swearing (*nakul*), there is one possibility that a judgment may be rendered against him because if he had confessed, a judgment would be passed. Alternatively, a judgment may not be passed because it constitutes a judgment against an absent party without evidence, and there is no confession regarding the share in his possession.