Chapter on reclaiming usurped property that is found in the hands of someone other than the usurper

If the usurper sells the thing he seized and its owner later finds it with the purchaser in exactly the same condition—no alteration having occurred—the owner may not demand its value from the usurper. He is limited to one of two courses: either he takes the item itself, allowing the purchaser to recover the price from the usurper, or he endorses the usurper’s sale and collects that price from him.

Should the owner find the item with the purchaser after its form or state has changed, he is then given three options: he may take it as it now stands; he may ratify the sale and receive the purchase price; or he may claim its value from the usurper, calculated as of the day it was seized.

If the purchaser has enjoyed any produce or benefit from what he bought from the usurper, and the owner consents, those yields and benefits belong to the purchaser, yet he remains liable for them.

If the usurped property is a female slave whom the usurper sells and the purchaser subsequently sets free, the owner may still choose to reclaim her, in which case she is returned to slavery.

If the purchaser has had intercourse with her and she becomes pregnant, and the owner then reclaims her while she is still in the purchaser’s possession, the owner now has three alternatives: he may take her together with the value of her child from the purchaser, valued on the day judgment is rendered rather than the day of birth; he may leave her with the purchaser and claim her value from the usurper as of the day of usurpation; or he may validate the sale and take the purchase price from the usurper.

All of this is a concise presentation of Mālik’s doctrine. Mālik also said that when the owner finds her in the hand of a purchaser who has made her pregnant, he has no right except to take