بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

المحكمة العليا

القضاة:

سعادة السيد / جـون وول ماكيــج  قاضي المحكمة العليا   رئيساً

سعادة السيدة/ فريـدة إبراهيـم حسين  قاضي المحكمة العليا   عضواً

سعادة السيد / أحمـدالبشير محمد الهادي  قاضي المحكمة العليا  عضواً

الأطراف:

فاطمة علي الزبير                                                     الطاعنة

// ضد //

ورثة علي الزبير                                              المطعون ضدهم

الرقم م ع/ط م/130/2003م

قانون تسوية الأراضي وتسجيلها لسنة 1925م– قسمة الإفراز في الملكية الشائعة - المواد (134) (135) من القانون مقروءة مع المادة (559) من قانون المعاملات المدنية لسنة 1984م

المبدأ:

1- لا تقوم قسمة الإفراز بين الملاك على الشيوع إلا في الأراضي المسجلة كلمة owner ship تعني الملكية وفق نص المادة (54) من قانون تسوية الأراضي وتسجيلها لسنة 1925م وهي الملكية المسجلة التي تجوز فيها قسمة الإفراز

2- الأرض التي يحوزها شركاء على الشيوع وليست مسجلة لا تجوز فيها قسمة الإفراز لأنهم منتفعون بحيازتها فقط

الحكــم

JUDGE: JOHN WUOL MAKEC

Date:632003

Applicant/ plaintiff, Fatma Ali El Zubeir, raised a civil suit ( CS/659/2003) in East Bhari District her Court against the respondent/defendants heir of Ali Zubeir In his suit plaint he claimed partition of his share, which according to him, has the size of 495 Sqmon plot No7q17 in El Gereif Korkoch

The district judge, however, dismissed the suit on ground that the disputed land is not registered This decree was confirmed by the Court of Appeal This objection was therefore loged against the decisions of the lower courts

The applicant’s lawyer attached the decision of court of Appeal as far as it relies on the decision of the Court in case of: Hamed Fadul Mulah and other ( 1981 ) 225,255 Of course, the court here stated what particulars an appeal must contain ( ie contents of appeal ) The lawyer stated that this judicial precedent is irrelevant in this case because it ( ie judicial precedent ) was made in the light of Civil procedure Act, 1983

The leaned advocate again contended that it is the right of any partner (shirik ) in land held jointly, under S 134 CPA 1983 to call for partition Impliedly, it was wrong to dismiss the suit The learned advocate referred to circumstances where court may refuse to order partition      ( eg under s 135 CPA 1983 ) But to him these are irrelevant to his clients’ case

But the learned advocate completely abstained from discussing whether or not “ registration “ ( of disputed land 7 share ) is a legal pre-requisite in a partition suit despite the fact that issue ( registration ) is the sole determinance of his claim

The main ground for dismissal of applicant/plaintiff” suit was lack of registration It was found that the land subject of request partition was not registered

All that the learned advocate raised and discussed in his application to this court do not refer to the core of the matter The important issue is one and that is the question of registration Hence our question for determination is: whether or not registration of disputed land ( and share ) is a legal pre-requisite in a partition claim

The relevant legal provision to the dispute before us is s 134 of Civil procedure Act, 1983 The provision states :-

“Where immoveable property is held by co-owners     (malaak ) in undivided shares a suit for partition of such property may be instituted by:

(a)               Any one or more of the co-owners,

(b)The government if such property is registered land……

The relevant clause of this section is clause (a) because this suit, before us, was raised by one of the co-owners

But the question is whether or not anything in this clause makes the registration as a pre-requisite for partition Apparently or on the face value, there is no indication that registration is a pre-requisite However, the answer can be determined from the use of the word: “ co-owners “ From the use of this ward, it follows that the joint holders of the land , subject of partition suit are  “ owners “ or “ proprietors “ ( of that land ) The section, however, does not envisage “ co-possessors “ of land This would have been embodied in the section

Since the section talks about ‘co-owners’ the next question is:how “ ownership “ of land is acquired Ing other words what made these people to become ‘ co-owners’ in undivided ?

The answer to this question is to be found under section 54 of Land Settlement And Registration Act, 1925 This section prescribes that ownership of land is conferred on a person by registration ( of that land ( in his name

Since the applicant/plaintiff, as a co-owner, claimed the partition of land her ought to have presented to the court a search certificate as evidence of registration of the land in his name and other (names also) Such certificate would show that the ownership of land, subject of partition suit, belongs to him with others in undivided shares But he had no certificate of registration to present and so no ownership was conferred on them by land Authority He was also required to present a sketch or diagram showing land   demarcation or boundaries This sketch is made prior to registration to show boundaries of the land

Before we finalize our judgement, some remarks may be made in relation to clause (b) of S 134, which says the government, may raise a partition suit where “ the property is a registered land This clause tends to create misunderstanding in clause (a) It tends to show that an individual person under clause “a” can raise partition suit even if the land is not registered In other words it tends to indicate that registration is not a prior requisite to partition of land when the claim is made by a co-owner

But this is not the case since, as stated before, clause (a) talks of “ co-owners “ and ownership (as also stated before) is conferred on person only by registration of land in his name Clause (b) however, implies that joint  holders or possessors of land (egunder customary practices or local orders from local authorities) may call for partition of that land Where such suit is raised before the court it will be dismissed since the land is not registered But the parties are free to raise their claims before the local authorities to take the necessary decisions

In conclusion it must be stated that registration of land, subject of partition suit is a pre-requisite otherwise the suit must be dismissed

Accordingly if my learned colleagues agree, we confirm the decisions of the courts below and reject the application with the costs

القاضي: فريدة إبراهيم حسين

التاريخ: 24/3/2003م

أتفق مع زميلي الفاضل مولانا/ جون وول في كل ما ذكره وأضيف بأن نص المادة 134(ب) والذي اشترط لجواز قسمة الإفراز للدولة رفع تلك الدعوى في حالة الأراضي المسجلة بأن هذا النص يؤكد أن تكون جميع الأراضي التي تجري عليها قسمة الإفرازات مسجلة وفقاً لقانون تسوية الأراضي وتسجيلها 1925م وذلك لأن الشرط الأول في المادة أن يكون العقار مملوكاً على الشيوع وقد نص القانون بأن الملكية لا تعتبر سواء كانت ملكية عين أو منفعة إلا إذا كانت مسجلة في اسم صاحبها وفقاً لقانون تسوية الأراضي وتسجيلها أنظر المادة 559(2) و(3)

وقد جاء نص المادة 134(ب) للتفرقة ما بين الأراضي المسجلة فعلياً باسم حكومة السودان وفقاً لقانون تسوية الأراضي وتسجيلها وهذه التي أجاز فيها للدولة رقع دعوى قسمة الإفراز وما بين الأراضي المسجلة حكماً أي بحكم القانون حيث اعتبر قانون المعاملات المدنية 1984م المادة 559(أ) بأن تعتبر جميع الأراضي من أي نوع التي لا تكون مسجلة قبل تاريخ العمل بهذا القانون كما لو كانت قـد سجلت باسـم الدولة وأن أحكام قانون تسويـة الأراضي وتسجيلها 1925م قـد روعيت بشأنها وهـذا النص ليس غريباً بل أنه قد نقـل من قانون الأراضي غير المسجلة 1970م

ولهذا اشترط قانون الإجراءات المدنية 1983م أن تكون أرضا عشوائية رغم اعتبار الأخيرة مسجلة حكماً باسم الدولة

القاضي: أحمد البشير محمد الهادي

التاريخ:26/3/2003م

أوافق

Order:

We confirm the decision subject of this objection and conversely reject the application with costs

JUDGE: JOHN WUOL MAKEC

SUPREME COURT JUDGE

142003