"ملف ٥/٢ IV حدائق تمور الشيخ" [و‎‎٧] (٤٩٤/١٨)

fr
is, i-i a _ ^ e(ic8 ^ *-7 Az^
IV^ r\ flLAuiJiCL' ^l/fcjt. (k^vuw , /* /V^aX K*x+Z~xvJ'
(7aAAsixJL ,fc-c < *fa~**AJ*s /.occo
^ 2 L r^nr-KTr^■.»<>, .^w^K, ^9^3
'©
IIULK III gAO LiilTDG :
^ ty ^ tt+* AK. ^
In this portion it i s aomi t t^e^tnat /^abahs ha ye been in
^ A C^)
continual possession for at least eighty years,there remains there-
fore no cause to call history as iiow they acquired the land
inasmuch as even assuming that the land ms originally Miri (Go
vernment) the same lias become sirf M u lk (sole ownership) and the
right ox the Government to claim that the land is Miri has been,
since 1890,tine barred ('I’he time prescribed by law for claims by
a/T
the Government pertaining Miri lands is 36 years from the date
of adverse possession).
TAtAHUL BETVfcSii T1I3 LTAJJAK AMD TKS TA 1 /LB:
The 40 and other number of jeribs alleged to have been
excepted as bel o ng in to Ai-Jabran and others is, feaa^ffice*, far
beyond the truth hee-ttor--have—thio— q onf4med by -the SnaiIgh^. The
simultaneously made statement,as the payment of i of the produce
\
thereof to the Shailch,is sufficient to contradict the allegation.
SIFFSHEITCSS:
/ u * All thefiVabs liad undei-Ua^n to pay the Mallakia of^932
^ Atayi Uja^y
season at the basis of 56^awp.t of < thempgaid in full whilt some
of them left certain balance^, unpaid. Consequently 25 law suits
were filed against Ta’abs for the recovery of the balance^
1 lr$ Twenty tlxree of the above mentioned suits were filed in
the Court at Abul Kjhasib and^tv/o in the Court of 1st instance
at Basrah-The suits at Abul Khasib Court came up for hearing
when the counsel of defendant hgigagg denied the Shaikh* s
ovmership to the land and rm liW requestythe Court passed an order
calling upon the counsel of the Shaikh to produce the title deed/
the cases were postponed*^ olXc^oo @B332> v
C. j Shaikh*s counsel appeared before Abul Khasib Court on
the day of rehearing of the case and was prepared to submit his
argumentf. But when he was called and appeared he found that
defendant*s counsel was absent and therefore asked for ex-parte
Aj
judgment which was accordingly passed. Six Ta*abs accepted the
judgment while 17 Ta’abs objected thereto and the day for hearing
the objection was bn nr Sunday the 24th October 1933
wv t he two suits i^^Basrah Court came up for hearing on the
10th of July . One of them was dismissed from the Court*s Juris-
dicuion point of view . The other suit under Ho.36 of 1933 was