All praise is due to Allah alone, and peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and upon his family and companions. To proceed:
In the fourteenth session of the Council of Senior Scholars held in the city of Taif from 10-21/10/1399 AH, the Council considered the topic of (prescription in the matter of possession). It reviewed the research prepared by the Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and Ifta on the subject, based on what was decided in the thirteenth session, and examined the opinions of scholars from various schools of thought, among which the clearest was:
What the scholar Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in his book "The Judicial Paths" when he said:
Section: The third path: To rule in favor of the possessor with the oath of the owner, as if someone claims an item in the possession of another and the latter denies it, then he is asked to swear an oath; he swears, and the item remains in his possession to favor the side of the possessor. This is why the oath is legislated in his favor, as the oath is legislated in favor of the stronger of the two disputants, provided that the possession does not contradict the apparent evidence. If it does contradict it, then it is disregarded, and it is known that it is a nullifying possession. This is similar to if we see a person running with a turban in his hand and another behind him bareheaded, who is not accustomed to walking bareheaded; we conclude that the turban in his hand belongs to the other, and we do not pay attention to that possession. We must act decisively on this evidence, as the knowledge derived from it is much stronger than the suspicion derived from mere possession. Indeed, possession here does not provide any suspicion at all, so how can it be prioritized over what is certain or nearly certain? Similarly, if we see a man leading a saddled horse with its bridle and riding gear, which is not customary for him, and behind him is a walking prince or someone who is not accustomed to walking, we conclude that his possession is nullifying. Likewise, if the accused of theft is seen with currency that does not belong to him, or if he is seen with fabric and jewels, etc., which are not customary for him, and he claims they are his property while they are in his hands, we do not pay attention to the ownership of possession. Similarly, any possession that is indicated by apparent evidence that necessitates certainty or nearly so is a nullifying possession with no ruling, and it cannot be ruled upon. If we rule by possession, it is only when it is not opposed by something stronger than it. If possession can be nullified by refusal, by a single witness with an oath, and by a rejected oath, then it is certainly nullified by something much stronger. This is something that cannot be doubted; it is among the rulings of justice with which Allah sent His messengers and revealed His books and established them among His servants.
Thus, there are three types of possession:
1. A possession known to be nullifying and unjust, which is not considered.
2. The second: A possession known to be rightful and just, upon which no claim can be made, such as someone who is seen possessing a house and managing it in various ways, such as construction, destruction, leasing, and lending for a long time without any dispute or claim against him, and without any power or influence. If someone claims that he has wrongfully seized it from him and taken it without right while he has been observing him for this long period and could have sought its release from him but did not do so, this indicates the falsehood of the claimant, and the possession of the defendant is rightful. This is the view of Malik and his companions and the people of Medina, and it is the correct view. They said: If we see a man possessing a house and managing it for many years through demolition, construction, leasing, and development, and he attributes it to himself and claims it as his property, while another person is present observing his actions throughout this long period, and he does not oppose him in it, nor does he mention that he has a right to it, nor is there any obstacle preventing him from claiming it due to fear of authority or other harm that prevents him from claiming rights, and there is no kinship or partnership in inheritance or anything similar that would allow relatives and in-laws to attribute shared property to themselves, but he is entirely devoid of that, then if he comes after this long period claiming it for himself and wishes to provide evidence for that, his claim is not heard at all, let alone his evidence, and the house remains in the hands of its possessor; because any claim that is denied by custom and contradicted by habit is rejected and not heard. Allah says: (And command by the customary practice and turn away from the ignorant). The Sharia has mandated returning to custom in cases of dispute over claims, such as currency and others, and likewise in this matter, and this is not contrary to customs, as people do not remain silent about what occurs in this manner without excuse. They said: And if we consider the length of time, Ibn al-Qasim, Ibn Wahb, and Ibn Abd al-Hakam have specified it. And Asbagh has set it at ten years, and they may have cited a hadith reported from Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Zayd ibn Aslam: that the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, said: (Whoever possesses something for ten years, it is his). This is not established. As for Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, he did not set a specific limit for that and viewed it according to what the Imam sees and strives for.
3. The third: A possession that may be rightful or nullifying, and this is the one upon which a claim can be made, and it is ruled upon in the absence of something stronger than it. The legislator does not change a possession that custom and sense testify to being nullifying, nor does he disregard a possession that custom testifies to being rightful.
The potential possession: It is ruled upon by the closest things to correctness, which is the stronger of the two, and Allah knows best. The legislator does not designate a nullifying possession, nor does he assist in nullifying the right, and he rules in ambiguous matters by the closest paths to correctness and the strongest.
And what Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned is the opinion of many scholars, may Allah have mercy on them.
Whereas the Council does not know of any specific legal text that defines the duration of ownership of a specific item in the hands of a person who has no proof of ownership other than the length of time, while another person claims ownership and has evidence that it was his by means of legitimate ownership. Given that this issue is one that is based on custom and the principle of blocking means, and that the ruling in each case varies according to the time, place, persons, and circumstances.
Therefore, the Council sees that there should be no specific duration established as a basis for judges to base their rulings upon, but rather the ruling should be left to their discretion. If a case arises for one of them, he should exercise his judgment according to the differing circumstances and contexts, and base it on the legal principle that may apply to it.
This is with Allah's guidance, and may Allah send blessings upon Muhammad, his family, and his companions.