Civil Responsibility of Ownerless Property

There is a difference of opinion among jurists with regards to ownerless properties or estates. Some of them are of the view that one on whose hand a property has perished or one who has benefited from it is not liable. They have resorted to the principle of "Ma yutlab bi - qimatihi yutlab bi - manafieh wa ma la yutlab bi manafeehi la yutlab bi - qimatih" which means that anything whose price is asked for, its profits are asked for too, and anything whose profits are asked for, its price is not asked for". Some other scholars have said that it is not necessary that liability should be established only when a property has a specific owner. In fact, it can be established in favor of other possessors of rights. As well, there is no concomitance between an object and its profit when it comes to liability. Even in such cases, liability can be considered with regards to the profit so that properties which do not have a specific owner may be included in the first part of the principle, not the last part. Some other scholars are of the view that liability depends on the ownership of the people to whom the property has been endowed to benefit from its profit. That is to say, if the ones to whom a property has been endowed are the owners of the endowed object, those who benefit from it are liable against it. But in case where the beneficiaries have the right to benefit from the property only, he who usurps a property is not liable to them. As well, based on the opinion of some jurists, the endowed property can also be the subject of usurpation, and the usurper will be liable.