Responsa for Bava Batra 93:4
לא צריכא דקא אמרי עדים בפנינו הודה לו הנך איכא למימר קושטא קא אמרי האי אע"ג דאודי נמי לא מהימן כדרב כהנא דאמר רב כהנא אי לאו דאודי ליה הוה ממטי ליה ולחמריה לשחוור
then the son of a robber should also [have <i>hazakah</i>]? — [They do base their title on the possession of their fathers], and our rule applies to the case where witnesses declare: The claimant admitted to him [the father] in our presence [that he had sold the land to him].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. points out that in such a case there is no need of hazakah, and therefore reads, 'where they (the various sons) declare: In our presence etc. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> In the case of the others [the son of the craftsman and the metayer and the grandson of the robber] the presumption is that they are telling the truth, but in the case of the son of the robber, even though he [the claimant] admits [he sold it to [the father] we do not believe him, on the ground put forward by R. Kahana, that if he did not admit this, the other would hand him and his ass over to the town prefect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The officer who imposed compulsory service or socage on the inhabitants. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
SOURCES: Cr. 46; Pr. 100; L. 368.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Since B and his sons claim to have received permission to settle in T, and also show three years of undisturbed settlement, they have the right to dwell in T, and to prevent all newcomers from settling in T without their permission. If, however, A proves that B and his sons are informers, the latter cannot claim undisturbed settlement. If only B was proven to be an informer, his sons may still claim undisturbed settlement for themselves if their claim is entirely independent of that of their father.
SOURCES: Cr. 47; Pr. 100; L. 369; Mord. B. B. 532.