Fatwa No : 83811
Ruling on claim from the inheritance of an uncle by children of a nephew who made the uncle perform Hajj

Ruling on claim from the inheritance of an uncle by children of a nephew who made the uncle perform Hajj

What do the esteemed Islamic scholars and learned Muftis say regarding the following matter: A man named *Zaid* passed away, leaving behind two brothers, a wife, and a daughter as heirs.

After Zaid’s death, when the matter of inheritance distribution arose, it was discovered that Zaid had transferred ownership of his land to his wife during his lifetime, and in the official government records, the land was in his wife's name. Later, Zaid’s wife transferred this land to her only daughter and had the records officially changed in her name.

Meanwhile, Zaid’s nephew *Isa Khan* had made his uncle Zaid perform Haj while he (Isa Khan) was working in Saudi Arabia. After Zaid’s death, his sisters and other heirs decided that since Isa Khan had performed Hajj for Zaid, the cost of that Hajj was a debt on Zaid. Therefore, they gave Isa Khan the mentioned land in return for that debt.

Now, Isa Khan is dead and his heirs claim that this land belongs to them.

The following questions arise and need clarification:

1. Based on official government documents, does this land rightfully belong to Zaid’s wife? And was it valid for her to transfer it to her daughter? Or should this land be considered part of Zaid’s estate and distributed among his legal heirs?

2. Is the claim of Isa Khan’s sons on this land valid? Note that apart from this land, the rest of Zaid’s estate (cash, etc.) has already been distributed.

الجوابُ حامِدا ًو مُصلیِّا ً

If the individual named *Zaid* had in fact transferred ownership of his personally owned land to his wife, and also gave her full and formal possession of it, then that land became the property of his wife, and subsequently, it rightfully passed to his daughter. No one else has any claim to that land, and the mentioned daughter has full rights to use or dispose of it as she wishes.

Furthermore, if the late *Isa Khan* performed Hajj for his late uncle *Zaid* without any formal agreement or contract — purely out of respect for his uncle or out of family affection — then this act is considered a voluntary good deed (*tabarru‘*) and a charitable favor for which Allah will surely reward him. Therefore, the cost of the Hajj was not a debt upon Zaid, and he was not legally obliged to repay it.

Accordingly, Isa Khan’s children have no valid claim over Zaid’s land nor any rightful demand for reimbursement of the Hajj expenses. Such claims should be avoided.

مأخَذُ الفَتوی

ففي الدر المختار: (و) شرائط صحتها (في الموهوب أن يكون مقبوضا غير مشاع مميزا غير مشغول) كما سيتضح. (5/ 688)۔
و في الدر المختار: والدراهم تتعين في هبة ورجوع مجتبى اھ (5/ 702)۔
و في حاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار): (قوله: ورجوع) أي ليس له أن يرجع إلا إذا كانت دراهم الهبة قائمة بعينها فلو أنفقها كان إهلاكا يمنع الرجوع اھ (5/ 702)۔
و في العقود الدرية في تنقيح الفتاوى الحامدية: (سئل) في دار مشتركة بين زيد وورثة أخيه فاحتاجت للعمارة فعمرها زيد بدون إذن ورثة أخيه ولا أمر القاضي ويريد الرجوع على الورثة المرقومين فهل ليس له ذلك ويكون متطوعا؟ (الجواب) : نعم الدار المشتركة إذا استرمت فأنفق أحدهما في مرمتها بغير أمر صاحبه وبغير أمر القاضي فهو متطوع اھ (2/ 278)۔