If the crop belongs to one person, and he acknowledges half of it for the claimant, then reconciles with him for it in exchange for half of the land, so that the entire crop becomes the property of the acknowledger while the land is shared equally between them, then if he stipulates cutting it, it is permissible, because the entire crop belongs to the acknowledger, so the condition of cutting it is permissible. It is also possible that it is not permissible, because there is within the crop what is not sold, namely the half that he did not acknowledge, and it is within the remaining half that belongs to him, so the condition of cutting it is not valid, just as if one stipulated cutting another crop on different land. If he reconciles with him for it for the entirety of the land on the condition of cutting it, in order to hand over the land to him empty, it is valid, because cutting the entire crop has half of it due by virtue of the reconciliation, and the remainder is for the purpose of clearing the land, so the cutting is possible.

If his acknowledgment was for the entire crop, then he reconciled with him for half of it in exchange for half of the land, so that the land and the crop are shared equally between them, and he stipulated cutting the entirety, it is possible that it is permissible, because they have both stipulated cutting all the crop and handing over the land empty. It is also possible that it is prohibited, because the remainder of the crop is not sold, so the condition of cutting it in the contract is not valid.

Section: If the branches of a man's tree hang into the airspace of another's property, or into the airspace of a wall in which he has a share, or over the wall itself, the owner of the tree is required to remove those branches, either by turning them to another side or by cutting them; because the airspace is property for the owner of the ground, so it is obligatory to remove what occupies it from another person's property, just as the ground itself. If the owner refuses to remove it, he cannot be forced, because it is not from his action, so he cannot be forced to remove it, as if he were not the owner of it. If anything is damaged by it, he is not liable for that either. It is also possible that he should be forced to remove it and be held liable for what was damaged by it if he was ordered to remove it and did not do so, based on the ruling for when his wall leans into another's property, as we will mention later, God willing. On both views, if he refuses to remove it, the owner of the airspace has the right to remove it by either of the two means; because it is equivalent to an animal that enters his house, he has the right to expel it, and so it is here. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. If it is possible for him to remove it without destruction or cutting, without any hardship being imposed upon him or any loss, it is not permissible for him to destroy it, just as if it were...