to pay the value of the child, he has no right to reclaim that amount from the one who deceived him, for the deception did not relate to the child.

As for the profits generated by property that is later adjudged to belong to someone else: when the possessor is liable because he held it under a presumed right of ownership, there is unanimous agreement that those profits belong to the rightful claimant. By “liable” I mean that any loss would be borne by the possessor were the property to perish in his care.

If, however, the possessor is not liable—such as an heir who is subsequently joined by another heir who becomes entitled to part of what is in his hand—he must still return the profits.

Should he be non-liable yet claim reimbursement of the purchase price—for instance, when a slave proves to be free—then, even if the slave has already perished, he may seek to recover the price. Here the jurists express two opinions: (1) he is not held liable if there is no one from whom he can reclaim the price, and (2) he is held liable whenever such a person exists.

At what point do the profits pass to the claimant? Some say on the day judgment is rendered, others from the day the right is established, and still others from the day the possessor is formally put on notice.

If we adopt any one of these three moments, and the property consists of trees bearing fruit that has reached that moment but not yet been picked, then there are two views: the fruit belongs to the claimant so long as it has not dried, or so long as it has not fully ripened. In either case the possessor may recover from him whatever he spent on watering and tending the orchard—provided the trees were bought before pollination.

If they were bought after pollination, Ibn al-Qāsim holds that the fruit belongs to the claimant once it has been harvested, and the possessor is reimbursed for irrigation and cultivation; Ashhab, however, says it belongs to the claimant as long as it has not been harvested at all.

When land is reclaimed, its rent belongs to the claimant if the adjudication occurs during the sowing season; if that season has already passed, the rent is due to the possessor.

If the property has deteriorated in value and the diminution is not the possessor’s fault, he owes the claimant nothing. But if he has realised its price—for example, by demolishing a house and selling the materials—then someone else later establishes title to the property, the claimant may recover from him the price of the materials sold.

The Qāḍī states: I have found no substantial disagreement within the Mālikī school regarding the principles I have set out here. According to other schools, however, if the disputed property was bought by barter and the article given in exchange has vanished, the claimant should receive a like article rather than its monetary value, for they hold that restitution in kind is required in all cases of destruction. Those same principles would also allow the possessor to pursue the buyer whether a small or a large portion of the property is reclaimed, because no sale contract or mutual consent ever covered the remainder.

Thus ends the Book of Rightful Claim—praise be to Allah.