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] [ظ‎‎١‎٦] (٧٠/٣٢)

30
There have been many different decisions as regards necessity
or non-necessity of registering land in different parts of Iraq but
I am of the opinion that as far as the transactions in land at Basra
is concerned section 36 of the Land Law certainly applied as to
permission of Mamnr Tapu and since the Irada Saniyah of 1318
there have been many decisions insisting that sales must be regis
tered or they have no validity. The first part of section 1 of Law
to dispose of Immovable Property 1329 lays this down and applies
in Iraq according to many decisions. The Unregistered Sales Con
firmation Proclamation 1919 affirms this in its Preamble.
24. Generally I am of the opinion that, even if the omission
to inform me of the case, was intentional, the grounds given by the
Court of Cassation will be accepted by the Iraq Government as being
valid grounds for determining this claim and unless there is some
treaty obligation I do not think that the Iraq Government will
admit any liability. The argument may be expressed as follows:—
Minor children are not bound until they reach majority.
They may take any legal steps to recover what they think is
their patrimony. The sale by ancestor of plaintiff is null and
void. If there is a legal flaw in the title of the purchaser
from their father and mother they may recover the estate even
though it has enormously increased in value unless they are
time barred. They were not time barred at the date of the
Basrah Law Repeal Act and under the Civil Law no pres
cription can be good as the Sheikh admitted he held his titles
from the ancestor of Plaintiff.
I will put the matter in another way. The Sheikh of
Kuwait has induced the British Government to guarantee his
possession of lands to which he cannot (presumably) establish
his legal title.
I draw attention to the following :—■
It is in fact clear from the conditions of the deed that
he was aware of the necessity of registration and aware
that there were difficulties he endeavoured against the
express provisions of the Law to ensure that the sale should
not be considered null.
25. As to the promise by the British Government, the Iraq
Government, so you inform me, don't admit this promise to be
binding on the Iraq Government. If there is a dispute between
the two Governments, presumably the matter will go to the Hague
Court. If the Hague Court holds that this is an international
obligation of Iraq, then, the Iraq Government may have to pass
a law expropriating those persons who establish their claims in
those gardens.
If the Hague Court holds that there is no international obli
gation on the Iraq Government it seems to me that this becomes
a matter between the British Government and the Sheikh of Kuwait
and it is for the British Government to decide whether the Sheikh
should be compensated.
26. I notice that the Sheikh of Kuwait refuses to employ
Mr. Mirza Mohammed. It will be extremely difficult for the High
Commissioner to get legal opinion unless some advocate of standing
is employed and I am of the opinion that it is advisable to obtain
the advice of an experienced local advocate. It may be that the
ruling on limitation under the Indian Limitation Act can be
attacked and the ruling that article 20 of the Land Code is subject
to the overriding provisions of article 1674 of the Majell.e may be
challenged by the advocate.
27. The Political Resident of the Gulf asked about the claim
to be independent of the Law Courts. All I can say is that the