"ملف 59/15 B (A 14) مسقط: تجارة الرقيق تحت مظلة العلم الفرنسي" [و‎‎١‎٢‎٨] (٣١٠/١٩٨)

ro
V> -
t Acquisition of property in Maskat by foreigners.
ACQUISITION OP PROPEBTY IN MASKAT BY FOBEIGNEBS.
No. 1755-E.A., dated Simla, the 28th August 1902.
From—The Under-Secretary to the Government of India in the Foreign
Department,
To— M ajor P. Z. Cox, C.I.E,, Political Agent at Maskat.
When you were in Simla last month, you enquired whether any objection
could be raised to the issue of an order by the Sultan to the effect that the
acquisition of property in Maskat by foreign subjects will not be recognised
unless it is registered by the Sultan (or by the officer deputed by him) before
the transfer of the property takes place. You observed that, if such an order
were issued, the Sultan would know beforehand when the transfer of any sacred
or religious property was contemplated, and might take steps accordingly, e.g,
in the case of foreclosure on a mortgage he could pay off the mort^a^e him
self, if he so desired.
You also enquired whether, with a view to prevent the sale by British
Indian traders of houses or other property to French or Russian purchasers, it
would be possible for you, as British Consul, to issue an order to the effect that
sales of immoveable property in Maskat by British subjects will not be recog
nised unless registered in the British Consular Court before the actual transfer.
2. In reply to your enquiries, I am directed to convey the following
instructions:—
With respect to the first proposal, it is clear that Article 5 of the Treaty
of 1891 with Maskat does not supersede the ordinary rule of private
international law, under which transfer of immoveable property is
governed by the lex loci. It merely permits British subjects to
acquire or alienate property by any mode legally open to the Sul
tan's subjects. There is no objection to the issue by the Sultan of
a law requiring registration for the purpose of giving him notice of
the contemplated acquisition of property by foreigners. It is not,
however, clear from the terms of your reference whether the precise
effect of the proposed order has been properly understood. It is
not known what the local law in Maskat as to the alienation of
wahf property may be; but, assuming it to be the same as in India,
the issue of the proposed order would not, it is considered, enable
the money-lender to sell up any such property which is not alien
able at present. On the other hand, if the local law permits the
alienation of wakf property, and if the Sultan sees a pious duty in
saving such property from passing to others than Muhammadans,
the issue of the proposed order will no doubt give him an oppor
tunity of performing that duty.
3. As regards the second question, it is not clear by what authority a dis
pute between a British subject on the one part and a French or Jiussian subject
on the other is decided. By Article 13 of the Treaty of 1891, the Sultan has
divested himself of jurisdiction; but by Article 6 of the Order in Council, dated
the 4th November 1867, His Britannic Majesty's Consul is invested with
jurisdiction only in disputes arising between British subjects. If the idea is
simply to de6ne the limits of diplomatic redress, there is no objection to your
declaring that you will not exert yourself in the case of any transfer to any
subject of any other Christian State, unless such transfer has, previously to its
completion, been notified to you.
Furthermore, under Article 1 of the same Order, you might frame a rule
for the peace, order and good government of His Majesty's subjects, prohibiting
563 F. D .-S E—C3-64— Sept.