What is the ruling when a usurper dyes a usurped garment using dye he possesses?

Primary text

The situation is divided into three scenarios based on value change. If the combined value of the garment and dye neither increases nor decreases, and they remain at their initial values, the parties become partners in the dyed item based on the proportion of their respective values prior to the dyeing process. If the value increases, the increase is allocated based on whether it resulted from the market value change of the garment, the dye, or both. If the market price of the garment increased, the increase belongs to the garment owner; if the dye's market price increased, the increase belongs to the dye owner. If both contributed to the increase, the surplus is divided proportionally to their respective increases. If the increase resulted from labor, the surplus is shared between the owners because the usurper's labor added value to both the usurped item and his own dye. If the value decreases due to market fluctuations, the usurper is not liable. If the decrease is due to the labor, the usurper is liable for the loss resulting from his transgression. If the value decreased so that the dyed garment is worth only the original value of the garment, the entire item belongs to the original owner, and the dye owner gets nothing. If the final value falls between the original value of the garment and the sum of the original values, the garment is divided between the owners according to their respective current values.