What is the ruling on a person swearing that he owns a car registered in his name, while it is owned by another person?

The basis of an oath is the intention of the swearer as long as the wording can accommodate it, unless the oath pertains to a right of another person, in which case the oath is based on the intention of the one who requested it. Scholars have agreed that an oath refers to the intention of the swearer if the wording can accommodate it and does not contradict the apparent meaning, or if it contradicts it and he is oppressed.

The situation of a swearer who interprets their oath falls into three categories: 1. If he is oppressed: he is permitted to interpret it. 2. If he is an oppressor: his oath is based on the apparent meaning of the wording intended by the one who requested it, and his interpretation does not benefit him. 3. If he is neither an oppressor nor oppressed: he is permitted to interpret it.

If someone in whose name a car was fictitiously registered swears that it is his, and he intended that he possesses it by true, real ownership, then this is a false oath. However, if he intended that he owns it legally and his oath did not result in injustice to the real owner or anyone else, then there is nothing against him.