The heir's agent does not dispose of the share of those who did not appoint him among them
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
Fatwa No. ( 1510 )
Q: My father passed away leaving behind seven sons, five daughters, and two wives. He bequeathed one-third of his wealth and appointed the eldest brother as the agent for that one-third. Then, the eldest brother was appointed as the agent for all the heirs except two of his brothers. Each of those two appointed the other as his agent regarding his inheritance rights, paying off debts, and relinquishing rights: A - Does the eldest brother have the right to dispose of the deceased's wealth, such as relinquishing or selling, without the presence of the two brothers who did not appoint him, considering that he is the agent for the majority of the heirs? And if one of the heirs objects to the agent for the one-third in executing the bequest on the grounds that the one-third is large and harmful to the heirs, and they request that it be considered as one-fifth or one-sixth, is their objection accepted? B - If the eldest brother was appointed as the agent for the minors, who are not his full brothers and who have an adult full brother, and they gave him a general agency, but their full brother objected to their appointment of him on the grounds that he is closer to them, is his objection accepted? C - The deceased has a farm, and some of the heirs want to invest in it while others, or one of them, want to sell it. How should they proceed?
A: First: The eldest brother does not have the right to dispose of the share of the two brothers who did not appoint him if they are of sound mind, without a valid legal agency, even if he is
the agent for the majority of the heirs. No heir has the right to object to the agent in his disposal of the one-third bequeathed by the deceased merely because the heirs are poor or on the claim that the one-third is large. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted a bequest of one-third, and a valid bequest becomes binding upon the death of the testator. They only have the right to object if he spends it on purposes other than the specific legitimate purposes designated by the testator, or on general charitable purposes if the testator did not specify a particular purpose. The poor among the testator's relatives are the most deserving people to have their needs met from the one-third after fulfilling any specific bequests, if there are any. Second: If the judge appointed the eldest brother as the agent for the minors, and he is a paternal half-brother, and the judge was aware of the existence of their full brother for a benefit he saw, then the full brother has no right to object to the agent. If the judge appointed the paternal half-brother without knowing about the full brother, the full brother may bring the matter to the judge and explain the reality so that the judge may look into it and rule on what he sees as in the best interest of the minors. If the minors themselves appointed the eldest brother, their agency is invalid, and the appointment of their guardian should be referred to the judge if their father did not appoint someone qualified for the agency. Third: If the deceased has a farm and the heirs disagree on whether to invest in it or
sell it, they should divide it if possible, and each should dispose of his share as he sees fit for his benefit. The agent appointed with a valid legal agency for the minors should dispose of their share as he sees fit for their benefit. If it cannot be divided, they should sell it and divide the proceeds. If they dispute, they should refer the resolution of the dispute to the court. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Q: My father passed away leaving behind seven sons, five daughters, and two wives. He bequeathed one-third of his wealth and appointed the eldest brother as the agent for that one-third. Then, the eldest brother was appointed as the agent for all the heirs except two of his brothers. Each of those two appointed the other as his agent regarding his inheritance rights, paying off debts, and relinquishing rights: A - Does the eldest brother have the right to dispose of the deceased's wealth, such as relinquishing or selling, without the presence of the two brothers who did not appoint him, considering that he is the agent for the majority of the heirs? And if one of the heirs objects to the agent for the one-third in executing the bequest on the grounds that the one-third is large and harmful to the heirs, and they request that it be considered as one-fifth or one-sixth, is their objection accepted? B - If the eldest brother was appointed as the agent for the minors, who are not his full brothers and who have an adult full brother, and they gave him a general agency, but their full brother objected to their appointment of him on the grounds that he is closer to them, is his objection accepted? C - The deceased has a farm, and some of the heirs want to invest in it while others, or one of them, want to sell it. How should they proceed?
A: First: The eldest brother does not have the right to dispose of the share of the two brothers who did not appoint him if they are of sound mind, without a valid legal agency, even if he is
the agent for the majority of the heirs. No heir has the right to object to the agent in his disposal of the one-third bequeathed by the deceased merely because the heirs are poor or on the claim that the one-third is large. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) permitted a bequest of one-third, and a valid bequest becomes binding upon the death of the testator. They only have the right to object if he spends it on purposes other than the specific legitimate purposes designated by the testator, or on general charitable purposes if the testator did not specify a particular purpose. The poor among the testator's relatives are the most deserving people to have their needs met from the one-third after fulfilling any specific bequests, if there are any. Second: If the judge appointed the eldest brother as the agent for the minors, and he is a paternal half-brother, and the judge was aware of the existence of their full brother for a benefit he saw, then the full brother has no right to object to the agent. If the judge appointed the paternal half-brother without knowing about the full brother, the full brother may bring the matter to the judge and explain the reality so that the judge may look into it and rule on what he sees as in the best interest of the minors. If the minors themselves appointed the eldest brother, their agency is invalid, and the appointment of their guardian should be referred to the judge if their father did not appoint someone qualified for the agency. Third: If the deceased has a farm and the heirs disagree on whether to invest in it or
sell it, they should divide it if possible, and each should dispose of his share as he sees fit for his benefit. The agent appointed with a valid legal agency for the minors should dispose of their share as he sees fit for their benefit. If it cannot be divided, they should sell it and divide the proceeds. If they dispute, they should refer the resolution of the dispute to the court. And success is from Allah, and may Allah send prayers and blessings upon our Prophet Muhammad, his family, and his Companions.
Source
www.alifta.gov.sa
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.