There is disagreement concerning this issue, but the discussion here proceeds according to the madhhab. They say that the customary practice in such matters is to say, “We shall write that you made a gift and delivered possession,” so that no outstanding claims remain in the matter. He then says, “Yes, write that I made a gift and delivered possession,” although he did not actually deliver possession. For example, suppose he gave his house as a gift while he himself was still living in it. He is told, “Acknowledge that you made a gift and delivered possession,” and so he acknowledges that he made a gift and delivered possession, in order to settle the matter and leave no outstanding issues. This occurs frequently. It also occurs in another case that the author will mention: when a person acknowledges that he sold something and received the price.
In any case, the author says: “If he requests that his opponent be required to swear, he has that right.” The judge will require him to swear. If he refuses to swear, some of the Companions said that judgment is given against him on account of his refusal, without returning the oath to the one who made the acknowledgment. Thus, it is said: Since you did not swear, you have no right to it. Judgment is given against him on account of his refusal, and the donor is told, “Take back what you gave as a gift; nothing is binding upon you.”
The second view is that the oath is returned to the one who made the acknowledgment. He is told, “Swear that you did not deliver possession to him.” This view is more in keeping with sound analogy. We have previously stated that the stronger view is that, when the person upon whom the oath is due refuses to swear, the oath is returned to his opponent. This applies even more strongly here, because his opponent claims that he delivered possession, and this claim can only be rebutted if the donor swears that possession was not delivered. There is no harm to him in swearing to something that is true. If he is truthful, then he has fulfilled his oath; and if he is lying, he will not swear. Thus, in either case: if he swears, he is entitled to the gifted property; but if he refuses to swear, he is not entitled to it. As for returning the oath to the donor, that is subject to the disagreement mentioned above. The stronger view is that the oath is returned to the donor if the donee refuses to swear.