❖ Shariah Ruling on Sale of Inherited Property and Currency Depreciation ❖
Answered by: Fadīlat al-ʿĀlim Muḥammad Ṭāhir Ḥafiẓahullāh & Fadīlat al-Bāḥith Dāʾūd Ismāʿīl Ḥafiẓahullāh
We are five sisters and our parents have passed away. Our father had made a will that if the house is to be sold, it should preferably be purchased by one of the daughters, and the others should be paid their shares. He also said that since the daughters are poor, the purchasing sister may deduct ₹100,000 from the total payable to each sister. The house was sold for ₹1,000,000, and the purchasing sister paid ₹180,000 to each of the other four sisters.
Now, the sister who bought the house lives in a rented home and intends to sell the house, whose current value is ₹2,500,000. The question is:
Should she now pay the current value of the property to her sisters or is the previous agreement still valid?
Apparently, it is understood that the house was fully sold by all the sisters to one sister 23 years ago, and the agreed sale price at that time remains binding. Therefore, the earlier agreement is valid and remains in effect.
It is indeed true that the sale was finalized and a specific price was agreed upon.
However, the issue arises due to depreciation in currency value. The question is:
Should the purchasing power loss over time be compensated?
❖ Some Scholars’ View:
If the value of currency has decreased by more than one-third (ثلث), then the debt amount should be adjusted to reflect the current value.
❖ Preferred Opinion (Rājiḥ):
A general rule is applied: Any loss in currency value should be compensated, regardless of the percentage.
For example:
If someone lent ₹1,000 three years ago and the value of the currency has halved since then, then ₹2,000 or ₹3,000 may be returned, not as profit but to compensate for the value loss, which is not considered ribā (usury).
If the sister who purchased the house is financially weak, then it is virtuous and commendable for the remaining sisters to show kindness and accept the previously agreed amount.
However, from the standpoint of justice and fairness, it is more appropriate to adjust the paid amount according to the current value of money to compensate for depreciation.
Majallat Majmaʿ al-Fiqh al-Islāmī (Issues 3, 5, and 8)
This journal contains detailed scholarly discussions and differing opinions on this matter.
Answered by: Fadīlat al-ʿĀlim Muḥammad Ṭāhir Ḥafiẓahullāh & Fadīlat al-Bāḥith Dāʾūd Ismāʿīl Ḥafiẓahullāh
❀ Question:
We are five sisters and our parents have passed away. Our father had made a will that if the house is to be sold, it should preferably be purchased by one of the daughters, and the others should be paid their shares. He also said that since the daughters are poor, the purchasing sister may deduct ₹100,000 from the total payable to each sister. The house was sold for ₹1,000,000, and the purchasing sister paid ₹180,000 to each of the other four sisters.
Now, the sister who bought the house lives in a rented home and intends to sell the house, whose current value is ₹2,500,000. The question is:
Should she now pay the current value of the property to her sisters or is the previous agreement still valid?
✔ Answer:
Apparently, it is understood that the house was fully sold by all the sisters to one sister 23 years ago, and the agreed sale price at that time remains binding. Therefore, the earlier agreement is valid and remains in effect.
✿ Clarification:
It is indeed true that the sale was finalized and a specific price was agreed upon.
However, the issue arises due to depreciation in currency value. The question is:
Should the purchasing power loss over time be compensated?
Scholarly Opinions:
❖ Some Scholars’ View:
If the value of currency has decreased by more than one-third (ثلث), then the debt amount should be adjusted to reflect the current value.
❖ Preferred Opinion (Rājiḥ):
A general rule is applied: Any loss in currency value should be compensated, regardless of the percentage.
For example:
If someone lent ₹1,000 three years ago and the value of the currency has halved since then, then ₹2,000 or ₹3,000 may be returned, not as profit but to compensate for the value loss, which is not considered ribā (usury).
✔ Practical Solution for This Case:
If the sister who purchased the house is financially weak, then it is virtuous and commendable for the remaining sisters to show kindness and accept the previously agreed amount.
However, from the standpoint of justice and fairness, it is more appropriate to adjust the paid amount according to the current value of money to compensate for depreciation.
Reference:
Majallat Majmaʿ al-Fiqh al-Islāmī (Issues 3, 5, and 8)
This journal contains detailed scholarly discussions and differing opinions on this matter.
