Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/151

Paragraph 1- In all cases where consumption is not a proof, if the possessor brings witnesses that the owner sold him or gifted him this field, the witnesses would be valid proof, except in the case of a thief or a husband trying to acquire his wife’s properties. On which of the wife’s properties did they say this rule? On usufruct properties, a field that was designated for the wife’s kesubah, a field that was written in her kesubah and a field that he gifted to her. With respect to milug properties, however, he can bring proof.

Paragraph 2- If a woman bring witnesses that her husband sold her his property, the law is explained in Tur Even Haezer.

Paragraph 3- How does the law of a thief apply? Once a person has been established as a thief on this field, even if he were to bring a proof in a document that the owner confessed in front of witnesses that he sold the field to him and took the money and the owners say they did not sell it but just confessed out of fear, we would remove the field from the thief and he would have no claim against the owner. If the owner wrote a guarantee, there are those who say the thief would acquire the guarantee. If the witnesses testified that he counted such and such money, we would remove the field from the thief and return the money to the owners. There are those who say that if the witnesses saw the giving of the money and the seller did not first provide a declaration of nullification, the sale would be valid because we rule that if a seller is physically forced to sell the sale is still valid. This seems to me to be the primary ruling. See later in Siman 205 with respect to the giving over of the declaration.