File 1855/1904 Pt 10 'Koweit:- Relations with Turkey. Sheikh's properties at Fao and Fadaghia' [‎82v] (164/398)

really that Ahmed Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. Zohelr, from the members of whose family the property
was purchased^ in a such position that the Turkish law will help him at every
turn if the case came to depute.
It will be advantageous to recall the main facts j that four separate sale^
deeds were executed, that nearly all the property really belonged to women of
Ahmed Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. 's family; that he was their attorney ; that he then constituted
Abdul Wahatel Kertas as his attorney for the sale to Sheikh Mubarak; that
the property still stands in the names of some 10 different persons in the books of
the “ Tapoo ’’ (land registration) office ; that the purchase price has been paid
over in full and heavy further expenditure incurred by the Sheikh on improve
ments, buildings, etc. Consequently if Ahmed Pasha An Ottoman title used after the names of certain provincial governors, high-ranking officials and military commanders. , either as the result of
Turkish intrigue or through personal greed, laid claims to the property, repudiat
ed the sale or induced any of the persons concerned to repudiate either a power
of attorney or the sale of their own particular portion the only course for Sheikh
Mubarak would be to file a suit in the Turkish courts. If he did so in order to
establish his rights he is at once face to face with entries in the land record office
books showing the property as still belonging to the Zoheir family. Moreover
without a Turkish nationality certificate^it is a question whether he could even
plead in the Turkish courts. Mr. Consul Crow gives the legal position very
clearly in his despatch No. 6 to the Majesty’s Ambassador at Constantinople,
dated the 12th February 1909, a copy of which as forwarded to me under your
office endorsement No. 2667, dated the 24th October 1909, and I would invite
a reference thereto: it will be seen from this despatch how helpless Sheikh
Mubarak would be in the event of the Fadaghia property becoming a subject
of litigation. This insecurity will continue so long as the transfers are not legally
effected in the “ Tapoo ” office records.
5. Since the revolution in Constantinople I am informed that the greatest
strictness has been observed and insisted upon in all matters in which the laws
require that nationality should be proved. In the case of land transfers this rule
is complied with by the person desiring the transfer to his name producing his
certificate of Turkish nationality. This law / which I understand not to be a new
one by any means used to be freely evaded under the old regime with com
parative ease, but'that evasion has now become impossible.
, 6. Though the transfer of the Fadaghia property was originally prevented
PolFicai reasons, these have now been sufficiently explained by the present
Wah not to exist, in so tar that he has satisfied himself that the purchase was
bona fide and not effected with Bn&h gold. Accordingly the Wali asked the
authorities in Constantinople to rescind their previous order of suspension and
this request h as been approved. It was to this rescission that my letter No. C- 2 6,
dated the nth May 1910 referred. ’ The crux of the position now is that the
a f’ low c of a Ie gal transfer without the admission of Turkish nationality
and the Wah therefore would seem to be perfectly correct in his attitude when he
informs the Sheikh that he may effect the transfer to-morrow if he wishes but that
the law requires the production of a “ teskereh ” of Turkish nationality by the
person to whose name the transfer is to be made. His Majesty’s Consul at
Basrah may be able to verify if this view is substantially correct. *
nf StZikH'vf 1 \° thS WaH r insisti "g on the transfer being made to the names
of Sheikh Mubarak s four sons, I am informed by the Sheikh’s Secretary that this
, ansen , throu g h the . fact that when the property was first purchased,
he Sheikh desired it to be registered in the names of his four sons and the pre-
stonmA hv^^n™! 6 " 13 r 1 ” 6 311 mad r acc ° rdin g 1 y until the whole matter was
has^hl^h- de - rS a° f s u s Pe ns i on f rom Constantinople Since then the Sheikh
hi blind ^nn mind and wishes the property to be ir^ribed in the name of
h.s blind son Nasir and h.s seven daughters. This, however, appears to me to
quesTffin o'f l min ° r WhlCh C ° uM P robabl y be g°t over when the primary
question of the necessity for registration as a Turkish subject is solved.
8. As his letter to you shows, the Sheikh is exceedingly anxious for there
of hTf "d Way T 7 u ° U u- 0f th6 difGc uhy- He has not, so far, registered any
securi/v ’ y tf- S TUf f SUb]eCt jf’ th °u§ h I fear that his apprehension for the
security of his property, worth nearly £50,000, may before long induce him to