حدائق التمر المملوكة لشيوخ الكويت والمحمرة في العراق. نطاق الالتزامات الممنوحة من حكومة بريطانيا في ١٩١٤. قضية مقدّمة لمعرفة رأي المسؤولين القانونيين الملكيين ورأي ت. و. هـ. إنسكيب و ب. ب. ميريمان، إدارة المسؤولين القانونيين، ٢٩ مارس ١٩٣٣ وتشمل حدائق التمر المملوكة لشيوخ الكويت والمحمرة في العراق. ملخص تاريخي [غير مؤرّخ] [ظ‎‎١‎١] (٧٠/٢٢)

20
The Defendant appealed against this judgment on the grounds
that Lawyer Agob Effendi had attended the hearing in his capacity
as the Agent of the Plaintiff at the time when the latter had dis
missed him, thus his participation in this case, in accordance with
a special (ordinary) power of attorney, is illegal; that he (the
Defendant) administered the land for a period exceeding the
44 period of prescription " provided for in the Indian Law of
Limitation which was in force in Basrah, which makes the hearing
of the case illegal; that he hnno -bt the shares belonging to the
administered the land prior to the date of the document of sale,
and therefore the non-hearing of his personal (oral) evidence was
illegal. Moreover the civil " period of prescription " as well passed
this " tasarruf In case the land is considered as miri land
the Land Law should be applied thereto. The sale, which was made
in accordance with the power of attorney, was effected with the
permission of the Sharia Court. Had the sale been regarded as
illegal, a judgment should have been passed to the effect that the
money received by the Appellee through her guardian should be
refunded. In view of the above the Appellor demanded that the
judgment be reversed and the Plaintiff's case rejected, and that
the Appellee should pay the court fees etc.
The following is the summary of the written statement in reply :
The Indian Law of Limitation does not apply to this case. More
over the period between the dates of its enforcement and repeal is
less than the " period of prescription and the request made by
the Appellor to hear his evidence regarding " tasarruf " and the
application of the " period of prescription " is not reasonable as
he based his " tasarruf on an ordinary document of sale which
states that the Appellee owns these shares. This confession refutes
the " period of prescription." As the sale of miri land effected
without the permission of the Mamur of Khaqani register is con
sidered illegal, the " tasarruf " of the Appellor is also illegal,
and in this case the provisions of the Land Law cannot be applied.
As the Appellor did not raise a case in the past demanding that the
price should be refunded, he has no right now to claim that price.
As regards the sale permission deed, it cannot now be considered
as he (the Appellor) did not present it in the Court of First Instance.
The independence of one of the guardians in the administration of
the property of minors is invalid. In view of the above it is re
quested that the judgment from which this appeal has been lodged
should be approved and that the Appellor be charged to pay the
court fees etc.
On the date fixed for the trial, Lawyer Iskandar Mansur
Effendi, Agent of the Appellor, and Lawyer Kamal Effendi Al
Sanawi, Agent of the Appellee, appeared before the Court and
repeated the contents of their written statements respectively. The
case having been heard the Court withdrew for discussion. As a
result of the examination of the case by the Court of Appeal the
important objections raised by the Appellor have been summarised
as follows : —
(1) That the hearing of the case was attended by Agob
Effendi, as Agent of the Appellee, after withdrawing her
power of attorney in his favour.
(2) That under both the Civil and Indian Laws the
period of prescription has lapsed in this case.
The first objection is out of the question because Lawyer Agob
Effendi attended the hearing in accordance with another power of
attorney which was unobjectionable. The lady who made this power
of attorney in favour of her Agent did not raise any objection,
and at the same time no objection to this was raised in the Court
of First Instance.
Appellee from her mother
guardian; and that he