If each of them hires him for a known fee to divide his share, it is permissible. If they all hire him in a single rental agreement to divide the house among them for one known fee, each of them is liable for the fee in proportion to his share of what is divided. This is the opinion of al-Shafiʿi. Abu Hanifa said: It is upon them according to the number of heads, because his work on the share of one of them is the same as his work on the share of the other, regardless of whether their shares are equal or different; for the fee is the same between them. Our argument is that the fee for partition pertains to ownership, so it is between them according to the extent of the properties, like the maintenance of a slave. What he mentioned is not correct, because the work on the larger of the two shares is greater. Do you not see that if the divided item were measurable or weighable, measuring the large amount would be more work than measuring the small amount? The same applies to weight and sowing. Furthermore, it is invalidated by the [case of the] guardian, for the guarding of a small amount and a large amount is the same, yet his fee differs according to the difference in the property.

Section: The fee for partition is between them even if one of them is the one who requested it. This is the opinion of Abu Yusuf, Muhammad, and al-Shafiʿi. Abu Hanifa said: It is upon the one who requested the partition, because it is a right for him. Our argument is that the fee becomes obligatory upon the separation of the shares, and they are equal regarding this, so the fee is upon both of them, just as if they had agreed upon it.

Section: If one of the two parties to a partition claims there was a mistake in the partition and that he was given less than his right, you must look: If his partition is one that becomes binding via the drawing of lots and does not depend on their mutual consent, then the statement is that of the defendant, along with his oath, and the plaintiff's claim is not accepted unless there is just evidence. If he produces two just witnesses, the partition is annulled and repeated. If there is no evidence and he requests the oath of his partner that there is no excess with him, the partner is made to swear. We have given precedence to the statement of the defendant because the presumption is the validity of the partition and the fulfillment of the trust therein. If it is from those that are not binding except by mutual consent—such as that which they partitioned themselves and the like—the claim of the one who alleges a mistake is not heard. This is what our companions said, and it is the school of al-Shafiʿi, because he has already consented to that, and his consent to the excess in his partner's share is binding upon him. The correct view, in my opinion, is that this is like the one before it, and that whenever he produces evidence of a mistake, the partition is annulled; because what he claims is possible and has been established by just evidence,