the ruling regarding it is as it would be if it were in their possession initially. He is obligated to take an oath for each one of them regarding the half judged in favor of his companion, and each of them is obligated to take an oath for his companion (19) regarding the half judged in his own favor.

Section: If a man is in possession of a house and two people claim it, one of them says: "I rented it to you," and the other says: "It is my house, I lent it to you," or says: "It is my house, I inherited it from my father," or says: "It is my house," without mentioning anything else, and the possessor denies both of them, saying: "It is my house," then his word is the one to be accepted, along with his oath. If one of them has evidence, judgment is passed in his favor. If each of them presents evidence for what he claimed, they conflict (20), and the ruling is according to what we have mentioned previously, except for the narration in which the evidence testifying to the cause is prioritized; for the evidence of the one who claims he inherited it is prioritized due to its testimony regarding the cause. If one of them presents evidence that he [usurped it from him] (21), and the other presents evidence that he acknowledged it as belonging to him, then it belongs to the one from whom it was usurped, and there is no conflict between them, because combining them is possible in that he usurped it from this one and acknowledged it for the other, and the usurper's acknowledgment is void. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Thus, it is handed over to the one from whom it was usurped, and he does not owe the one in whose favor he acknowledged it anything, because he did not stand between him and it; rather, the evidence stood between them. If he acknowledged it for one of them and acknowledged (22) that he usurped it from another, he is obligated to hand it over to the one he first acknowledged it for, and he is obligated (23) to pay its value as damages to the other, because he stood between him and it by his first acknowledgment (24).

Section: Ibn Mansur narrated from Ahmad regarding a man who took two garments from two men, one for ten and the other for twenty, then he did not know which garment belonged to which person, and one of them claimed one of these two garments, meaning the other also claimed it; lots are drawn between them. Whichever one the lot falls upon takes an oath, and the good garment is his, and the other is for the other person. He only said this because they disputed an asset in someone else's possession.