The Date Gardens in Iraq of the Sheikhs of Koweit [Kuwait] and Mohammerah. Scope of undertakings given by HM Government in 1914. Case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Opinion thereon T W H Inskip and F B Merriman, Law Officers' Department, 29 Mar 1933. inc The date gardens in Iraq of the Sheikhs of Koweit and Mohammerah. Historical summary [undated] [‎13v] (26/70)

24
(12) Translation copy of a letter from Ministry of Tapi>
to Ministry of Finance signed by the Prime Minister pro
duced on 4.5.31. (probably 4.7.31).
(13) A letter from Mr. Dobbs dated 14th June, 1915.*
(14) An additional petition by the plaintiff dated 9.7.31.
12. In civil case No. 77 of 1930 of the Basrah Court of First
Instance, Rafia bint Ali Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. A1 Zuhair, sued Sheikh Ahmad
Jabir A1 Sabah (Sheikh of Kuwait). She claimed that she was
the owner of one share out of ten of a certain garden in Fadaghiyah.
This we know is the Bashiya garden. She alleged that detendant
took possession and prevented her from obtaining her share, she
set out her title which was based on Sanad Khakani, that this was
Miri land and any sale on such Miri land must have a special
authority from Mamur of Tapu vide section 36 of Land Law. She
claimed an order to prevent interference with her enjoyment.
Note : That the nearest approach to this kind of relief in
England Law is for an injunction to restrain etc.
The defence dated 26.10.1930 briefly denied that the Sheikh
of Kuwait took the land by force and laid certain preliminary
objections which were not important. On 28.1.1931 the main
grounds of defence was filed. The defendant first queried the
amount of the shares shewn to be in ownership of plaintiff. No
point turns on this now and it was not raised in the Court of
Appeal. It merely concerns whether the plaintiff inherited one
tenth or inherited 17 out of 216 shares. The third ground sets
out the case for the defendant namely that his grandfather Sheikh
Mubarak A1 Sabah bought the shares belonging to Shafiqa Khanim
and her children Hassan, Bahija, Najiya, Rafia (the plaintiff in
the case) and Kamila children of Ali Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. A1 Zuhair for 3033
lira and 30 kurush on behalf of herself as principal and as guardian
(wasi) on behalf of the children, as proved by Sanad of sale dated
21st Muharram 1327. The defendant then referred to a condition
of sale that if the business of Tafweedh i.e. transfer in Tapu were
delayed, that delay would not form any ground to cancel the sale,
he then stated that there was a delay in registering due to political
matters because the Ottoman Government considered that the Sheikh
of Kuwait had bought these lands for the benefit of the British
Government (sic) vide letter No. 504 dated 14.6.1915 from Abdul
Aziz Effendi el Salim el Badar, agent of defendant and for this
reason the Government of Turkey sent a code telegram to Dafterk-
hana of Tapu Basra not to register.
Note:—I have set out this ground at a length because it contains
what is the real reason for the delay in registration.
On 3.2.1931, plaintiff replied to this defence, the important
points being the following :—
(а) So far as the minor children were concerned, no per
mission was given by the Qadhi.
Note;—I mention this because the formalities of the
sale by the " Wasi " are given as one of the grounds in the
judgment of Court of First Instance Basrah dated
30.12.1931, but this point was not pressed in the Court of
Appeal, which decided the case on other points.
(б) Proved that this is Miri land and the sale of Miri
land without the permission of Mamur of Tapu was not
allowed in 1327 under Article 36 of the Land Law.
(c) That a sale outside Tapu must be registered under
section 1 Law of Transfer of Possessions of Immovable Pro
perty Act.
The defendant made a rejoinder to this dated 12.2.31 which
adds nothing to the matter but on 24.2.31 he filed a petition giving
the reasons why the sale was not registered in Tapu. He said
—r — —
* Document No. 7.