Testimony to Ownership Based Upon the Principle of Possession

In terms of jurisprudence and law, there is no debate about the implication of the Principle of Possession (POP) regarding ownership. The problem is that possession in itself does not entail certainty while it is essential in giving testimony before a court to be certain about the subject of testimony. The research question is whether, as a testimony, one can testify to a person's possession on the basis of POP? Jurists' diverse opinions, shortcomings of legislation, and need for judicial institutions to clarify the attendant ruling in financial claims necessitate revising of the pertained doctrine and evidence of POP. In this research, along with recounting jurisprudential solutions, analyzing, and criticizing them, the research question is studied from the two aspects of general evidence (primary rulings) and specific evidence (Sunnah). The general and specific evidence indicates that permissibility of giving testimony by virtue of POP is restricted to the non-financial claim in which the defendant is the possessor and the plaintiff is aware of it.