Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (3/108)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

the matter must be examined. If what the heirs have received is sufficient to cover the newly appearing creditor’s debt, he may recover it from them according to the procedure previously explained for a creditor who comes forward against the heirs, and he has no recourse against the other creditors. If it is insufficient to cover his debt, he may recover the remainder of his entitlement from the other creditors, according to the procedure previously explained for a creditor’s recourse against other creditors.

Section

The same ruling applies to the eighth case, in which a beneficiary of a bequest of a specified amount comes forward against the other beneficiaries and the heirs. The matter must be examined: if what the heirs have received in excess of two-thirds is sufficient to cover the newly appearing beneficiary’s bequest, he has no recourse against the other beneficiaries. If it is insufficient to cover his bequest, he may recover the shortfall from the other beneficiaries, according to what was previously explained concerning an heir’s recourse against other heirs, a creditor’s recourse against other creditors, and a beneficiary’s recourse against other beneficiaries.

Section

As for the ninth case, in which a beneficiary of a bequest of a fractional share comes forward against the heirs, Ibn Habīb held that this is treated like the case of a creditor who comes forward against the heirs. Ibn al-Qāsim held that it is treated like the case of an heir who comes forward against the other heirs.

Section

As for the tenth case, in which a beneficiary of a bequest of a fractional share comes forward against other beneficiaries of fractional shares and against the heirs, the ruling is that one must examine what the heirs have received from the third in addition to their two-thirds. If it is sufficient to cover the newly claimed share, the beneficiary has recourse only against the heirs. The manner of his recovery from them is subject to the disagreement previously mentioned between Ibn al-Qāsim and Ibn Habīb concerning a beneficiary of a fractional share who comes forward against the heirs. If it is insufficient to cover the newly claimed share, he may recover the remainder from the other beneficiaries, according to what was previously explained concerning a beneficiary who comes forward against other beneficiaries.

ينظر، فإن كان فيما أخذه الورثة كفاف دين الغريم الطارئ رجع عليهم على ما تقدم من وجه العمل في طروء الغريم على الورثة ولم يكن له رجوع على الغرماء، وإن لم يكن فيه كفاف دينه رجع على الغرماء ببقية حقه على ما تقدم من وصف العمل أيضا في رجوع الغريم على الغرماء. فصل وكذلك الحكم في المسألة الثامنة وهي طروء الموصى له بعدد على الموصى لهم وعلى الورثة، أن ينظر فإن كان ما أخذه الورثة زيادة على الثلثين هو كفاف وصية الموصى له الطارئ فلا رجوع له على الموصى لهم، وإن لم يكن في ذلك كفاف وصيته رجع بتمام وصيته على الموصى لهم على ما تقدم في رجوع الوارث على الورثة والغريم على الغرماء والموصى له على الموصى لهم. فصل وأما المسألة التاسعة وهي طروء الموصى له بجزء على الورثة فذهب ابن حبيب إلى أن ذلك بمنزلة طروء الغريم على الورثة. وذهب ابن القاسم إلى أن ذلك بمنزلة طروء الوارث على الورثة. فصل وأما المسألة العاشرة وهي طروء الموصى له بجزء على الموصى لهم بجزء وعلى الورثة، فالحكم في ذلك أن ينظر فيما أخذه الورثة من الثلث زائدا على الثلثين، فإن كان فيه كفاف الجزء الطارئ لم يكن له الرجوع إلا على الورثة، ويرجع عليهم على الاختلاف المتقدم بين ابن القاسم وابن حبيب في صفة رجوع طروء الموصى له بجزء على الورثة، وإن لم يكن في ذلك كفاف الجزء الطارئ رجع بالباقي على الموصى لهم على ما تقدم في طروء الموصى له على الموصى لهم.