He was asked:

Concerning a woman who freed a slave girl who had not yet reached puberty and assigned her property to her in writing, but the property remained in her possession until her death—that is, the death of the mistress who had freed her—and she left heirs: is her transfer of ownership to the girl valid, or may the heirs reclaim the property, or part of it?

He replied:

Praise be to Allah. Merely granting ownership, without possession being taken in the manner prescribed by Islamic law, does not make a gift binding. Rather, the heir may reclaim it. The same applies if it was a sham gift: an outward gift accompanied by taking possession, but with an agreement between the donor and recipient that the donor may reclaim it whenever she wishes, or a similar device used to deprive an heir or creditor of their rights. If that is the case, the gift is likewise invalid. And Allah knows best.

He was asked:

Concerning someone who had witnesses attest that his father held three hundred for a Hajj on behalf of a certain woman. Her heirs said, “He may take only one-third of it for the journey.” The man whose holding of the money was attested said, “My mother donated it.” What is the ruling?

He replied:

This attestation alone does not establish that the money forms part of an estate of which the heirs are entitled to two-thirds. The money may not have belonged to the woman, and the Hajj may have been the obligatory Hajj, whose expenses are paid from the estate itself. And Allah knows best.