SHARIAsource

N passed away in 1963 and his wife B passed away in 1989. They stipulated as their beneficiaries their three children: B bin M (appellant), Z bin N (first respondent) and H binti M (deceased). H binti M passed away in 2006 and was survived by her husband M bin H (second respondent), as well as her five children (third-seventh respondents).

With regards to N and B's joint assets (several parcels of land) bequeathed to their children, the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) granted the three children the following shares: B bin M, as the son: 2/4; Z bin N, as a daughter: 1/4; and H binti N, as a daughter: 1/4. Of H binti N's 1/4 share, her husband (second respondent) was granted three-quarters, with the remainder being distributed between the children (third-seventh respondents), the daughters receiving 3/24, and the sole son 6/24.

In affirming the decision of the lower court, the Court noted that it had urged the parties to reconcile prior to and after its adjudication, but that the respondents had maintained their claim.

T passed away on 6 November 1987 and Kh binti B (T's wife) on 28 October 2006. Kh binti B bequeathed IDR 614,515,366.00 and several parcels of land (the estate) to her five children (the appellants and respondents). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) found that the three sons were to receive two-eighths each of the estate, and her two daughters one-eighth each.

The daughters (second and third appellants) and one of the sons (first appellant) sought to challenge the lower court's ruling. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, however, finding there to be no incorrect application of the law.

The appellants sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed their inheritance claim in its entirety.

The Court acknowledged the appellants' objection that the lower court had only considered one witness' information (a witness produced by the respondents), but reconciled this by noting that that witness' information and one of the appellants' confessions had been corroborated by other evidence. This aside, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Cut Muerah Asiah had made a gift for her daughter, Cut Yusnidar binti T.A. Gani (first respondent), on 29 February 1996 in regards to a parcel of land, which the Lhoksukon Shari'a Court (lower court) had deemed to be lawful. T. Zulfikar bin T.A. Gani (appellant) sought to challenge the decision of the lower court, which had dismissed his claim in its entirety.

The Court made note of the fact that there had been 16 hearings before the lower court in regards to this matter, at none of which had the second respondent been in attendance. Similarly, the third respondent had only attended the first hearing. Because the lower court decision had the second and third respondents listed as defendants but contained no explanation as to their continued absence, the Court rendered the decision null and void. It made no comment, however, as to the legality of the gift.

The appellant sought to challenge the decision of the Meureudu Shari'a Court (lower court), which had dismissed his claim in its entirety.

The Court disagreed with the judgment of the lower court for several reasons. Firstly, the respondent, in his response (dated 4 August 2009), had stated that the object in dispute was part of his parents' estate and was bequeathed to the respondent via a deed executed in 1996 (dated 27 December 1996) while his parents were still alive. While this accorded with information provided by two of the respondent's witnesses (Ibrahim Bin Risyad, and the respondent's older sibling Asiah), it contradicted the respondent's own rebuttal.

On the other hand, the appellant's claim was supported by information provided by witnesses the appellant had produced. Moreover, the elements of a bequest had all been met, most importantly the requirement of consent. The Court made specific mention of the importance of consent in establishing a gift, quoting Syekh Sayyid Sabiq in Sunnah Jilid III.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the 1996 deed as having any legal effect, and found the bequest to be in the appellant's favour.

A bin H (deceased) married F binti A (second appellant) in 1974, after his first wife (A binti I) had passed away. The question before the Court was whether or not the property subject of the will was the joint property of the deceased and second appellant, or just that of the deceased. If it had been acquired while the deceased and second appellant were married, art 35 of Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage, in conjunction with art 85 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, dictated that it was their joint property, which had obvious consequences in terms of how it was distributed among the deceased's beneficiaries.

In overturning the decision of the Calang Shari'a Court (lower court), the Court found that certain portions of some of the parcels of land in dispute were the sole property of the deceased, while others were the joint property of the deceased and second appellant. The deceased's sole property was to be divided between his 10 beneficiaries (two wives and eight children), while the joint property of the second appellant and the deceased was to be divided 50/50 between the second appellant and the deceased. The inheritance of A binti I and M binti A bin H (one of the deceased's daughters, also deceased) was to be distributed among the surviving beneficiaries.

The Tapaktuan Shari'a Court (lower court) found that Siti Aminah (deceased) had left to her husband one-quarter of her estate, to her daughter Rosmalena binti Djamiudin (appellant) one-quarter, and her son Ridwansyah B.Ac bin Djamiudin (respondent) two-quarters. As her husband (Djamiudin) had also already passed away, his one-quarter share was left to his three children as follows: one-fifth to the appellant, two-fifths to the respondent, and two-fifths to the replacement beneficiary and wife (following respondent) of his deceased son Sofyan bin Djamiudin, Anita. Of Sofyan bin Djamiusin's two-fifths, he had bequeathed one-eighth to his wife (following respondent), more than one-half (58.33 per cent) to his son Fadel Muhammad, and more than one-quarter (29.166 per cent) to his daughter Hirah Manda Sofyani.

The Court found that the lower court had erred in stipulating the co-respondent as the replacement beneficiary of her deceased husband Sofyan because her relationship with Sofyan was one through marriage, not blood. The Court also found that a bequest, supposedly made by Siti Aminah on 15 October 1981, was rendered null and void as Siti Aminah had passed away on 29 April 1981. Accordingly, it redistributed the various estates based on these findings.

The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) had dismissed the claim of the appellants in its entirety, and they sought to challenge this decision.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the lower court.

H.M. Saleh bin Amaq Melah passed away on 30 December 2006, and was survived by his wife (first defendant). The deceased had six relatives, all of whom had also passed away, five of whom were survived by their own children. Some of those children were plaintiffs in the proceeding, others co-defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed that, while married to the first defendant, the deceased acquired a 31-acre rice padi in Orong Lapan, as well as a 32-acre property in Lemokek on which was situated a house. The rice padi was now in the possession of the second defendant, after the first defendant had sold it to the second defendant in 2007 for IDR 40 million to discharge debts of the deceased. With regard to the 32-acre property, 29 acres and the house had remained in the possession of the first defendant, while the remaining three acres had been sold by the first defendant to the third defendant for IDR 18 million. The plaintiffs and co-defendants maintained that, as the deceased and first defendant did not have any children, they were entitled to a share of the property, after the first defendant had been provided with her share of what was deemed a joint asset of the first defendant and deceased. The plaintiffs also asserted that the court should place a caveat on the property to prevent it changing hands while the case was on foot.

The first defendant submitted the following objections with the court:

1. That the plaintiffs' claim failed to include Ilah (the wife of one of the deceased relatives of the deceased);
2. Prior to embarking on the hajj, that the deceased and first defendant had arranged for one of the co-defendants to divide the property as necessary to ensure the daily needs of the deceased and first defendant were met; and
3. That the proceeds of the sale of the rice padi were not used to discharge any debts of the deceased as he had none.

The court acceded to the first defendant's first objection, concurring that the plaintiffs' claim was incomplete in that it failed to include one beneficiary. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim on those grounds and ordered the plaintiffs to pay court costs (IDR 1,276,000).

The plaintiffs stated that Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin (husband and wife) had passed away in 1983 and 1986 respectively, and were survived by their five children and beneficiaries (three sons and two daughters):

1. Sidin bin Amaq Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi), who passed away in 1980, was married to Inaq Kidi, who also passed away in 1985. They were survived by three children:

• Kidi, who passed away in 2008, and was survived by three of her own children (14th, 15th and 16th plaintiffs);
• Mendur bin Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (first plaintiff);
• Sriti binti Sidin (alias Amaq Kidi) (second defendant);
• Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
• Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
• Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
• Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

1. Cili (alias Inaq Saidi binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 2003, was married to Amaq Saidi, and was survived by seven children, two of whom had passed away (third-seventh plaintiffs);
2. Amaq Rusdi bin Amaq Sidin (first defendant);
3. Amaq Mugasih bin Amaq Sidin (second defendant);
4. Marike (alias Inaq Mundri binti Amaq Sidin), who passed away in 1982, having married Amaq Mundri in 1980, who had also passed away, was survived by:

• Nawati binti Amaq Mundri, who passed away in 1990, and was survived by her three children (eighth-tenth plaintiffs);
• Idaniati binti Amaq mundri (11th plaintiff);
• Ayuni binti Amaq Mundri (12th plaintiff); and
• Ariantini binti Amaq Mundri (13th plaintiff).

Amaq Sidin and Inaq Sidin left to their beneficiaries three plantations, two rice padis, and one coil made of pure gold with an estimated worth of IDR 1 billion. The plaintiffs claimed that, following the passing of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the land and gold coil had remained in the possesion of the defendants as the deceaseds' sons, without being distributed among the other worthy beneficiaries. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants had sold several portions of the bequeathed land to the co-defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested that the court distribute the assets of the deceased pursuant to Islamic inheritance law (hukum faraidl), that those portions of the aforementioned land already sold be included as part of the assets of the deceased, that a caveat be placed on that land not yet transferred to any third party, and that the plaintiffs' case be prioritised over any other related proceedings already on foot.

In enforcing the rights of the children of those beneficiaries who had passed away prior to Amaq and Inaq Sidin, the court cited arts 74(1) and 85(1) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, which permits the children of a deceased beneficiary to assume their entitlement. Moreover, the court noted that male children were entitled to twice the share of female children, per art 176 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. The court stipulated as beneficiaries the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs their share of the assets of Amaq and Inaq Sidin, as it had outlined and quantified, and ordered the defendants to auction parts or all of the properties if such a transfer was not physically feasible. It also ordered the defendants to pay court costs (IDR 2,371,000).

The appellants sought to challenge Giri Menang Religious Court Decision No. 207 of 2013, which had ordered them to transfer to the respondents the respondents' share of the estate of Amaq and Inaq Sidin (deceased). The appellants based their appeal on several grounds:

1. that the respondents' initial claim had failed to include certain relevant parties in their claim, as was revealed by the evidence provided by certain witnesses, and that those relevant parties were then inserted into the claim by the lower court;
2. that the lower court's decision lacked a legal foundation, and that its decision had exceeded the parameters of the plaintiffs' claim;
3. that the lower court had erred in stipulating certain information relating to the dimensions of the land in dispute;
4. that the lower court had ignored documents submitted by the appellants regarding a certain portion of the land in dispute; and
5. that the lower court had included the incorrect boundaries of the land in dispute, in terms of a local inspection.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that ground 1 was insufficient as the parties the appellants claimed had not been included were not beneficiaries (ahli waris) for the purposes of art 171(c) of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, and moreover, those parties had not been joined as parties to the claim by the lower court. The court found that the appellants had failed to establish ground 2, but conceded the appellants were correct in regards to ground 3. The court held, however, that it could simply amend the clerical errors raised in ground 3. Finally, the court dismissed ground 4, stating it had been acknowledged in the lower court's decision.

Amaq Soekalam din Daiman passed away circa-1970. His mother and father (Daiman and Sekrasip) had pre-deceased him, and his wife, Rakisah, passed away circa-1975. Amaq Soekalam and Rakisah had five children:

1. Nurisam bin Soekalam (passed away circa-1971);
2. Nuriasip bin Soekalam (first defendant);
3. Nuriadim bin Soekalam (first plaintiff);
4. Sukardip bin Soekalam (second plaintiff);
5. Nuriadip bin Soekalam (passed away circa-2003), married to Inaq Nuriadip, had five children:
6. Sadli bin Nuriadip (third plaintiff);
7. Lux bin Nuriadip (fourth plaintiff);
8. Heli bin Nuriadip (fifth plaintiff);
9. Herul bin Nuriadip (sixth plaintiff);
10. Purni bin Nuriadip (seventh plaintiff).

Amaq Soekalam left behind a plot of land (500m²) upon which was situated a semi-permanent structure (2 x 7m²), as well as a plantation (21,000m²). In 1965, he gave the plantation to Amaq Juni to develop, pursuant to an agreement that they would share the spoils. In 1982, however, a request was made that the plantation be registered by Badan Pertanahan Nasional - Lombok Barat (National Land Body - West Lombok) via the government asset legalisation process PRONA (Proyek Operasi Nasional Agraria - National Agrarian Operations Project), in order that a deed of title for the plantation could be issued. That deed of title was incorrectly issued in Amaq Juni's name, rather than Amaq Soekalam's, leading the plaintiffs to argue that it had no legal effect.

Circa-2006, Amaq Juni passed away and the land came into the possession of his wife (Inaq Uni) and children (second-sixth defendants). The plaintiffs claimed that, while Amaq Soekalam was alive, he both worked on the plantation and maintained possession of it. After he passed away, however, Amaq Juni came into possession of the plantation and had a deed of title issued in his name. After Amaq Juni's passing, the plantation came into the possession of the second-sixth defendants. The plaintiffs sought from the court an order that the plantation be divided between Amaq Soekalam's worthy beneficiaries, and that a caveat be placed on the plantation to preclude the defendants from dealing with the plantation in a manner adverse to the plaintiffs' interests. In addition, they requested that the other property be divided in accordance with Islamic inheritance laws (hukum faraid).

The court acceded to the plaintiffs' request insofar as it ordered the second-sixth defendants to transfer to the plaintiffs the plantation. The court ordered that it be divided between the plaintiffs pursuant to hukum faraid, specifically stipulating the share to which each beneficiary was entitled.

The appellants successfully challenged Giri Menang Religious Court Decision No. 220 of 2013. The court found that, pursuant to art 1795 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), among other provisions, the respondents' legal representation in the original case was not authorised to act on behalf of the respondents. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the initial proceeding (IDR 1,706,000) originally paid by the appellants, as well as costs for this case (IDR 150,000).

Book I of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers what constitutes a legal subject before the religious courts in shari'a economy-related disputes, as well as property deriving from trusts (amwal).

Book III of the Compilation of Shari'a Economy Laws (Kompilasi Hukum Ekonomi Syari'ah) covers the provision of alms (zakat), as well as the making of gift (hibah).

H had passed away in October 1993, and the Meulaboh Shari'a Court (lower court) had stipulated as his beneficiaries his wife and children. The lower court had also stipulated H's estate and the portions to which each beneficiary was entitled. M bin N (son and appellant) had been ordered by the lower court to transfer to the beneficiaries their share of what was under his control.

The appellant's appeal, however, was dismissed. The Court sided with A bin H (son and respondent representing the other beneficiaries), finding that the decision of the lower court was sound and accurate.

Aminsyah passed away in 1993. He was survived by his two wives, Hahine binti H. Mundut (first wife and co-respondent), Satumi/Tumi (second wife and first respondent), as well as Ahmad Sopian bin Aminsyah (son/fifth respondent), Adinah binti Aminsyah (daughter/second respondent), Satinah binti Aminsyah (daughter/third respondent), Samsidar binti Aminsyah (daughter/fourth respondent), and Hanime binti Aminsyah (daughter/appellant).

The Kutacane Shari'a Court (lower court) enforced the distribution of the deceased's estate between the beneficiaries, as had already been carried out deliberatively in 1993 in the village of Pancar Iman.

The Court concurred with the lower court's decision regarding the manner in which the estate was distributed. In terms of the appellant's initial claim, however, the considerations of the lower court often conflicted with one another. Accordingly, the Court chose to provide its own judgment.

It found that of the four parcels of land devised by the deceased, two were under the control of the appellant, and two were under the control of the respondents. This had been conducted correctly pursuant to a familial arrangement, and was affirmed by information provided to the Court by witnesses.

On appeal, the Court upheld the decision of the Bireuen Shari'a Court (lower court). The lower court had ruled as lawful a certificate of exchange, pursuant to which land the subject of a trust (wakaf) owned by a madrasah in Meunasah Tunong, was to be exchanged with land owned by Drs. Muhammad Muin (deceased), in Meunasah Teungoh, upon which a new school building was to be built.

The land and structure subject of the dispute belonged to the deceased, and had been devised lawfully to the respondents.

Amiruddin bin Mahmud had perished in the tsunami of 26 December 2004 in the village of Paya Tieng. He was survived by his four beneficiaries, Arba'iyah binti Amiruddin (daughter and first appellant), Husniati binti Amiruddin (daughter second appellant), Nurhayati binti Mahmud (sister and first respondent), and Jauhari binti Mahmud (sister and second respondent). The Jantho Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated that to his beneficiaries the deceased had devised two properties and four parcels of land, with the appellants each receiving a two-sixths share, and the respondents one-sixth each.

The appellants, in their response and appeal, noted that the deceased's wife, Mardhiah, had also perished in the 2004 tsunami, and that she had been survived by beneficiaries such as her sister and niece. The respondents, however, had failed to include those beneficiaries in their initial claim, rendering their application null and void. Moreover, they had failed to specify whether or not the objects of their claim were the personal assets of the deceased, or the joint assets of the deceased and his wife. Pursuant to Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 621/K/Sip/1975, the Court overturned the decision of the lower court, finding the respondents' initial claim to be null and void.

Syarifah binti Abdurrahman perished in the tsunami of 26 December 2004. The Banda Aceh Shari'a Court (lower court) stipulated as the deceased's beneficiaries: Nurhayati binti Abdurrahman (sister and first appellant); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (sister, deceased); Jumiati binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-first appellant); M. Amin bin Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-second appellant); Maisarah binti Abdul Wahab (daughter and co-third appellant); Hazmin bin Abdan (nephew and first respondent); and M. Ali bin Abdan (nephew and second respondent).

The lower court stipulated as the deceased's estate three shops and three parcels of land, and divided the estate among the parties as follows: the first appellant (one-quarter); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (one-quarter, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (one-quarter); and the first and second respondents (one-quarter).

The appellants appealed the decision on the grounds that the respondents' initial claim lacked clarity. The Court, however, found that it was sufficiently clear both in terms of identifying the then-defendants (now appellants), as well as the property subject of their claim as the deceased's estate.

The Court found fault with the way in which the lower court had distributed the estate among the beneficiaries. It noted that two or more sisters were only entitled to a two-thirds share, in accordance with surat An-Nisa, verse 176 from the Qur'an. As one of the deceased's siblings (Ansari binti Ibrahim) had passed away before her, art 185 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws dictated that Ansari's inheritance claims devolved to her heirs. Accordingly, Nurjannah binti Ibrahim's share became that of her heirs as well, as she had passed away in 2007 after the deceased.

In accordance with the Qur'an and art 182 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws, sisters that pass away are only entitled to a two-thirds share, and are not entitled unless there are no ashabah beneficiaries (beneficiaries from the father's side, not specifically bequeathed any part of the deceased's estate), per art 193 of the Compilation of Islamic Laws. Based on the hierarchy of ashabah beneficiaries, the Court found that the respondents as nephews of the deceased were indeed ashabah beneficiaries in this instance, as no closer male relative existed.

Accordingly, the Court distributed the deceased's estate as follows: the first appellant (two-ninths); Nurjannah binti Abdurrahman (two-ninths, transferred to the second-eighth appellants and fourth co-appellant); the co-first, co-second and co-third appellants (two-ninths); and the first and second respondents (three-ninths).