This makes it clear that when land is sold with planted trees growing on it, they follow the land itself. If it is sold with a crop that is harvested only once, the crop does not follow the land; rather, it belongs to the seller. But if it contains a crop or small trees whose produce is picked repeatedly or which are cut repeatedly, then the roots belong to the buyer, while the visible cutting and the visible produce belong to the seller. This is the detailed ruling.
All of this applies unless either party stipulates a condition contrary to it; in that case, the matter is according to their stipulation. Hence the author says:
“If the buyer stipulates that, it is valid.”
What is meant is the visible produce and the present cutting. Thus, if the buyer says, “I do not want you to come onto my land every day to pick the visible fruit or cut the standing crop. I stipulate that it should belong to me,” and the seller accepts, there is nothing wrong with this. The evidence is the Prophet’s saying: “Whoever sells palm trees after they have been pollinated, their fruit belongs to the one who sold them, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.” (1) That is, the purchaser. He also said: “Whoever sells a slave who owns property, his property belongs to the one who sold him, unless the buyer stipulates otherwise.” (2)
Likewise, we say: whoever sells land containing a crop that is cut repeatedly, and the buyer stipulates that the standing cutting belongs to him, may do so. This is because the matter concerns a person’s right, and a person may waive his right so long as this does not entail anything unlawful. If someone were to say: “How can you permit the buyer to stipulate it when it belongs to the seller? For if the buyer stipulates it, there must be an increase in the price?”