'14/169 Differences between Shaikh Rashid of Um ul Kowein and his brother Naser bin Ahmad, June 1912 to 22 Jany 1917' [‎166r] (343/447)

ft
No 137 dateol 1st June 1914
FEOM: -
TfiFl ESSIDBNGY ACBNT AT SIIAPJAH
TO:-
THE
A • C j
POLITICAL RESIDENT A senior ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul General) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Residency. IN THE PBFSI .ATT c-UT-F,
I liave duly received your esteemed letter J T o!
dated 22nd April 1914 regarding the claim of Shail
Naser "bin Ahmad over his personal date-groves on
/!
1 9d.
n
.he
spring,which is a dependency of Umm-al-Qaiwain. iji ac
cordance with your orders,I informed him,in reply
his letter dated the 29th Eabi-ul-Thani 1352 that
'■ "■ ;
have taken note of his claim and it is not un.ders-
as to how this claim was not raised during the last
three years,and that the present is not a suitable ti
Y
for uging it.I also explained to Shaikh Naser that it
is very doubtful if the Pesidency in the Persian ;
will support this claim now or later.
Shaikh Naser's reply was similar to wh^t he has
already stated in his letter to your Honour,viz that
he at first submitted the inheritance ouestion for
discussion and intended to raise the question of : the
to
you
:ood
palm-trees (afterwards)but that he postponed doing:
(
when he saw that the settlement of that question
a long time owing to Shaikh Fashed's disagreement
the Eesidency's advice for the settlement of the
The number of Shaikh Naser's date-trees in t
places on the spring is 1100(one thousand one hun
according to the list forwarded to your Honour in
lette'r No lOO^dated 31st March 1914. According to
so
book
with
same,
iree
dred)
my
Shaikh Naser's valuation,each date-tree is worth P20
and the total value will thus amount to E? 22000(tfrentj
two thousand).
Pespite these circumstances,he has no idea o:
selling (the groves)as he has planted the date-trees in
order that he may a property with which to support ^