the right of another, which is the one who might fall into it. As for us, the liability only became binding upon him due to the existence of transgression (ta'addi); so when the owner of the land is pleased with it, the transgression ceases, and thus the liability ceases. This is not a remission of something that has not yet become due, but rather it is the elimination of the transgression by his consent to it. Thus, it is appropriate that this should be the case even if he did not utter a remission, but merely prevented him from filling it, because that implies his consent to it.

Third Section: The usurper is liable for the rent of the land from the time of its usurpation until the time of its delivery. Similarly, for everything that has a rental value, the usurper is liable for its equivalent rent, whether he availed himself of the benefits or left them until they passed away; because they perished in his transgressive possession, so he is liable for their compensation, just like the substances themselves. If he usurped land and built a house on it, if the materials for its construction were from the wealth of the usurper, he is liable for the rent of the land excluding the building; because he only usurped the land and the building is his, so he is not liable for the rent of his own property. If he built it with soil from it and materials belonging to the one from whom it was usurped, he is liable for its rent as a building; because the entire house is the property of the one from whom it was usurped, and the usurper only has the effect of the action therein, so there is no rent in exchange for it, as it occurred via transgression. If he usurped a house and demolished it without rebuilding it, he is liable for the rent of a house until the time he demolished it, and the rent of it as a demolished structure from the time he demolished it until the time he returned it; because the building was razed and perished, so no rent for it became due along with its destruction (15). If he demolished it and then rebuilt it with materials of his own, the ruling is the same. If he rebuilt it with its own materials, or materials from its soil, or property of the one from whom it was usurped (16), he is liable for its rent as a vacant plot from the time he demolished it until he built it, and its rent as a house before and after that; because the building belongs to the owner. Its ruling regarding the demolition of the building that the usurper built is the same as the ruling if he had usurped it as a vacant plot and built upon it. If the usurper sold it and the buyer built upon it, or demolished it then built it, the ruling does not differ, but (17) the owner may demand payment from whomever he wishes among them and seek recourse against him. If he seeks recourse against the usurper, the usurper seeks recourse against the buyer for the value of what perished of the substances, because the buyer entered into it with the understanding that it is guaranteed by him through compensation, [so the liability was settled upon him] (18). If the owner seeks recourse against the buyer, the buyer seeks recourse against the usurper for the decrease of what was damaged, and does not seek recourse for the value of what perished.