nor to assist in it. This does not result in a contradiction concerning the wall of the lower floor, where its owner is compelled to build it despite it being his exclusive property; because the apparent reality is that the owner of the upper floor owned it with a right to have it remain on the walls of the lower floor permanently, so the owner of the lower floor was obliged to enable him to exercise what he is entitled to, and the way to do so is through building; therefore it became mandatory, unlike our issue here. If the owner of the wall wishes to build it, or tear it down after building it, his neighbor cannot prevent him; because it is his property exclusively. If his neighbor wishes to build it, tear it down, or dispose of it, he has no right to do so; because he has no right over it.

Section: Whenever one of the two partners tears down a shared wall, or the roof between them, you must examine the situation. If there is a fear of it falling, and its demolition is necessary, then there is no liability upon the one who demolished it, and it is as if it collapsed on its own; because he performed a duty and removed the harm resulting from its collapse. If he demolished it for other than that, he is obligated to restore it, regardless of whether he demolished it due to a necessity or otherwise, and whether he committed to restoring it or did not commit to it; because the harm occurred through his action, so he is obligated to restore it.

Section: If they agree to build the shared wall between them in halves, while its ownership between them is in thirds (one-third and two-thirds), it is not valid; because he is reconciling over a portion of his property with another portion, so it is not valid, just as if he acknowledged a house for him and then reconciled with him over its habitation. If they agree that each of them may load upon it whatever he wishes, it is not permissible due to the uncertainty of the load, for he might load upon it weights that it cannot bear. If they agree that it be between them in halves, it is permissible.

Section: If there is a river, a canal, a waterwheel, a noria, or a spring between them, and it requires maintenance, there are two narrations regarding whether the one who refuses among them should be compelled. It is narrated from Abu Hanifa that he is compelled here to provide for the expenditure; because his partner is unable to divide it, so it would harm him, unlike the wall, for it is possible for them to divide the plot of land. The preferred view is to treat them equally; because in the division of the plot of land, there is harm to both of them,