‌Context & Objective: Upon a person's death the estate's ownership transfers to the heirs under Islamic and Iranian law yet Article 868 of the Civil Code stipulates that this ownership remains unsettled until the decedent’s debts are paid. This article explores the status of transactions conducted by heirs regarding estate assets before such settlement. The research focuses on whether these dispositions are void unratified or valid under a specific legal condition known as Mora’a. The primary objective is to clarify the jurisprudential and legal framework surrounding these transactions to resolve ambiguities within Imami jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system.
 ‌Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal legal methodology characterized by a comprehensive analysis of classical and contemporary Islamic legal texts and Iranian statutes. The researcher examines the opinions of prominent Imami jurists and legal scholars through a descriptive-analytical approach. The discussion is structured to evaluate the nature of heirs' ownership before debt settlement followed by an analysis of the validity and legal effects of their dispositions through a critical review of existing theories such as suspended non-ratification and Mora’a status.
 ‌Findings: The research finds that heirs’ ownership is immediate upon death but remains in a state of Mora’a or instability. It critiques the theory of suspended non-ratification (Mowquf) by noting that debt payment automatically validates the contract without requiring further permission from creditors. Furthermore, the article rejects the notion that Mora’a is an independent legal status between validity and voidness. Instead, the findings suggest that transactions by heirs are initially valid but remain subject to the creditors’ prior rights which act as a potential legal barrier. The article demonstrates that Unification Judgment No. 832 of the Supreme Court of Iran supports the validity and immediate legal effect of such conditional transactions.
 ‌Conclusion: The article concludes that transactions by heirs regarding the estate before debt settlement are valid but subject to automatic dissolution (Inifisakh) if creditors exercise their rights. If the debt is paid or waived the transaction remains fully effective. However, if the debt exceeds the estate and covers its benefits the dissolution is retroactive whereas it is prospective if the estate assets are sufficient to cover liabilities. This legal interpretation is grounded in the Rule of No Harm (La Darar) the principle of implicit constructive conditions and the legal succession of the transferee. This approach balances the interests of heirs creditors and bona fide third-party purchasers while promoting the efficient circulation of wealth.