Is it permissible to consider the brother entitled to financial sums based solely on his testimony, with some heirs not being convinced of his entitlement, in order to avoid resorting to the courts?

If the brother was tasked with finalizing contracts and overseeing the company's transition in exchange for a salary, then he is entitled to it, even if not explicitly stipulated, as long as common practice dictates it. After the completion of his task, he is not entitled to a salary, and he must return what he took as a loan or consider it part of his share of the inheritance, unless all adult and competent heirs waive the amount for him. If the brother claims entitlement to an amount but has no proof, and some heirs believe him while others do not, then a judge's ruling does not make lawful what is unlawful if he is lying. Those heirs who believe him should pay their share of the claimed amount. Reconciliation is preferable among brothers.