the deceased, since everything beyond what he acknowledged belongs to the heirs. They are required only to relinquish possession of that property and give the administrator access to it. There is no obligation to undertake those efforts or pay their cost.

As for the property acknowledged as an endowment, if the heirs use it or retain possession of it in a manner that prevents its rightful use, they must pay rent for that use, according to the positions of al-Shāfiʿī, Ahmad, and others who hold that liability for usurped property extends to its usufruct. The disagreement on this issue is well known. The deceased’s acknowledgment that it had been an endowment since the earlier date does not explicitly establish that his possession of it constituted usurpation, and liability cannot be imposed on the basis of mere possibility.

As for appointing one administrator after another, reference must be made to the customary practice governing endowments of this kind and comparable cases. If this customarily constitutes revocation of the earlier appointment, then it is a revocation. The same applies if the wording of the appointment entails that the second administrator alone is to exercise authority. Otherwise, you are already familiar with the issue: if someone bequeaths a particular property to one person and then bequeaths it to another, does this constitute revocation of the first bequest or not?

Whatever rightful claim the witnesses know of, if their testimony will secure it for its rightful claimant, they must not conceal that testimony. If, however, there is someone who is not entitled to it, and it will not reach the person entitled to it, they are not obliged to designate either of the two. If the person who took it did so on the basis of an interpretation and independent legal judgment, they are likewise not obliged to remove it from his possession. Rather, one acting on an interpretation and independent legal judgment is to be supported against one who has neither.