Likewise, land that cannot be equalized either by allotted portions or by value—due to a building or a well in part of it—has a division that is treated as a sale; therefore, one who refuses to divide it cannot be compelled to do so.

As for property whose division entails neither detriment nor payment of compensation, such as a village, an orchard, a large house, land, spacious shops, and goods measured by volume or weight that are of one kind—such as oils, milk, and the like—if one partner requests its division, the other is compelled to agree.

His statement, “land that cannot be equalized either by portions or by value,” means land that can be equalized only through compensation. The author thus informs us that the equalization of shares in land may sometimes be achieved by portions and sometimes by value.

Equalization by portions is when each of the two partners has a specified share of it, and it can be divided according to those portions.

Equalization by value is, for example, when one side of the land is good and the other side is inferior, while the two of us own it in equal halves. If we were to equalize it by portions, we would be unable to do so; it can only be equalized by adding some money to one of the shares. Its division is therefore a consensual partition.

An example of equalization by value is land with an area of 600 square metres, jointly owned by us in equal halves. If we were to equalize it by portions, each would receive 300 square metres, but this would not result in equality, because some of it is good and some is not; part of it contains a well and part does not. We therefore equalize it by value. They say: we assign one-third for the good land and two-thirds for the inferior land; likewise, we assign one-third to the land containing the well and two-thirds to that which has no well.

His statement, “such as a building or a well in part of it”: the particle kaf here apparently conveys causation. Ibn Malik said:

“Use kaf for comparison, and it may also signify causation …”

That is, regarding his statement, “cannot be equalized either by portions or by value,” it is as though someone asked: Why? He replied: “Because of a building or a well in part of it.” That is, this land is jointly owned by us, and we have built a house at one end of it, on the side facing the street; so it cannot be equalized except by adding