AI en Translation, Pages 126-150
Page 126
( 2 )
File Number 11 / S / 63
and its rescission, and over contracts, and he has the right of release and discharge regarding my private properties only, and settlement with tenants
and acknowledgment. ) And at the end of the power of attorney it stated ( and in summary, the aforementioned is my agent for following up all lawsuits to the last
degree of the courts, and he has the use of all powers granted to me by the law and which I can
legally use myself to protect my rights in general ) and it was found that the power of attorney was on 10 / 4 / 1955, meaning
that it was under the provisions of the Civil Code, and since based on this phrasing used in the power of attorney, it becomes
a general power of attorney for the rights granted therein after it stated at its end that the agent has the use of all powers
granted to him by the law. Accordingly, it includes every type of property leasing, including ordinary leasing
of endowed properties or the assignment of the lease of properties leased to others in exchange for a known consideration because it is not devoid of
the compensation contracted from the lease. Accordingly, the action of the trustee's agent in leasing the endowed properties by way of assignment
is not considered a departure from the power of attorney granted to him. And since, nevertheless, it must be asked whether this assignment
binds the endowment after the court characterized it as being subject to the provisions of Article 362 of the Civil Code, which requires knowing whether
the provisions of Article 363 of the Civil Code were applied, i.e., whether the assignment was executed or not. The appellant's agent replied in his brief stating
that the legal provisions related to the assignment of right make the appellant in the position of the assignee, and the appellee in the position of
the assignor, and the tenant in the position of the assigned parties, and the lease considerations in the position of the assigned right. And the provisions of the assignment
specific to the lawsuit are governed by Articles 262, 268, 267, and Article 362 of the Civil Code, as well as Article 271
regarding the trustee, and in light of them, the appellee has received an amount of ( 27600 ) dinars according to the two contracts presented
in the lawsuit, while the tenants owed only ( 2285 ) dinars, and part of the installments was documented by promissory notes
endorsed by the assignor to the appellee for the order of our client. And he did not hand over the documents of the assigned right, and thus there remained of the assigned
right ( 24615 ) dinars ⟦likewise⟧ without a document, and the assigned parties have paid what they owed of the right, so
it is no longer important to know whether the acceptance had a fixed date or not, and the responsibility of the assigned parties is organized by the texts of
Articles 362 and 363. And since the law has permitted the object of the obligation to be non-existent at the time of contracting if it is
possible to obtain in the future etc. ( Art. 129 Civil Code ) and the intention of the contracting parties was directed towards collecting the assigned
right from the lease considerations, however, the appellee leased the real estate to Khairi Hassoun Al-Ansari for a period of
two years falling within the period of the two assignment contracts, and Khairi Hassoun received the lease considerations, and this led to the loss of
the appellant's rights. And since by referring to the legal principles specific to the assignment contract relied upon by
the appellant in his defenses, we find that the assignment was accepted by the assigned parties, and therefore it became effective against them and
on this basis, the assignee has the right to recourse against them to collect his right from them, and he does not have the right to request recourse against
the contracting party on the pretext that he leased to others because the assignment was for compensation, so the assignor only guarantees the existence of the assigned right
at the time of the assignment, Art. 368 Civil Code, which is what the appellant's agent admitted in his brief. So leasing the property to others by
the lessor does not affect the rights of the tenant, and he has recourse against the assigned parties, and if that is impossible, he has recourse to
the judiciary to obtain what they owe to the appellant. This is in addition to the fact that the payment of the claimed amount to the appellee
is a matter that was not confirmed, as the appellant claims that the acknowledgment of the trustee's agent of receiving the amount was to prove the delivery of the amount
( 27600 ) dinars to the endowment without this amount appearing in the endowment's budget when the court brought it
( To be continued )
Page 127
( 4 )
File Number 11/S/63
The lawsuit file numbered 30/Sh/1959 in which the betrayal of the trustee Emil Saleh Shalum appeared, and since it appeared
that the two contracts concluded by the appellant with the agent of the trustee dismissed for his betrayal based on the actions of his agent Edward
Yaqub Sha'shua, which were contrary to the interest of the endowment, were organized after the lawsuit was filed to dismiss the trustee for his betrayal. The
first contract was concluded on 8/21/1960 and certified on 8/22/1960 by the Notary Public, and the second contract on 11/24/60
and certified on the same day by the Notary Public of South Baghdad II. These verbal actions by the trustee
do not bind the endowment unless the acknowledged funds actually appear in the endowment's assets. If they do not appear in the endowment's assets, then
the acknowledgment binds him in his own funds only, because his acknowledgment is a manifest lie regarding the state of the endowment's assets, similar to one who claims that he
lent someone such an amount while his appearance belies his possession of that amount. As for the appellant's agent's statement that the methods of proof
have been defined by law and may not be deviated from, the response is that what the court decided has no relation to the rules of
evidence, but rather it is a Sharia ruling based on the principles of Islamic Sharia which must be adopted according to the second paragraph
of Article One of the Civil Code in the absence of a text. And since for the mentioned reasons, the preliminary judgment
is, in terms of result, in accordance with the law by dismissing the preliminary lawsuit, therefore the court decided by consensus to ratify
the preliminary judgment in terms of result and to reject the appellate brief. The appellant has the right to seek recourse against the dismissed trustee
for the amounts he paid in a new lawsuit if he wishes, and to charge the appellant the fee and attorney's fees for the appellee's agent
in the amount of five dinars, a judgment in presence subject to cassation and announced publicly - 10/15/1964
The President
True Copy
H
S
Samir / 26
Page 128
Attorney
Mohammed Siddiq Shanshal
Baghdad on 26 / 5 / 1965
Rafidain Bank Building - 8th Floor
Telephone { Office 83721
Residence 22696
⟦illegible⟧
215 / ⟦illegible⟧
The Honorable Chief Justice of the Court of Cassation of Iraq
Subject / Request for correction of the decision in the cassation file
Numbered 1972 / Legal /
Petitioner for decision correction - Appellant - Hamid Majeed Al-Obaidi - Represented by Attorney Mohammed Siddiq Shanshal
Respondent for decision correction - Appellee - Head of the Administrative Committee for Jews - in addition to ⟦line⟧
his guardianship over the endowments of Menahem and Sassoon Daniel ⟦line⟧
Grounds for the Request:
My client was notified on 22 / 5 / 1965 of your esteemed court's decision to uphold the appealed judgment
reject the cassation objections, and charge my client the cassation fee and attorney's fees. Since this decision came
contrary to the law and prejudicial to his rights, I have proceeded to request its correction within the legal period for
the following reasons:
1- Contradiction in the legal basis for dismissing the lawsuit:
a - The Court of First Instance issued its decision to dismiss my client's lawsuit based on:
"The agent (the former dismissed guardian) exceeded the limits of his agency and concluded the waiver contract subject of the lawsuit
which the general power of attorney No. 383 did not authorize him to use, and he entered into this document to the detriment of the interest
of the endowment; therefore, no legal effect is entailed upon the endowment. Rather, this act is considered an exceeding of his agency limits, and he is
personally liable for it."
b - Upon appealing the aforementioned judgment, the Court of Appeal issued its decision
upholding the primary judgment, which included that:
"The appellant has the right to seek recourse against the dismissed guardian for the amounts paid in a new lawsuit."
It also stated:
"Accordingly, the guardian's leasing of the endowed properties by way of waiver is not considered a departure from the agency
given to him."
Then the Court of Appeal characterized the matter as an assignment of rights and decided:
"He - meaning the appellant - does not have the right to request recourse against the contracting party on the pretext that he leased to others because the assignment
was for compensation; thus, the assignor only guarantees the existence of the assigned right at the time of the assignment."
The appellate decision stated:
"These verbal dispositions by the guardian are not binding on the endowment unless the acknowledged funds actually appear in
the endowment's assets. If they do not appear in the endowment's assets, the acknowledgment binds him in his own assets only because his acknowledgment
is contradicted by the visible assets of the endowment."
⟦line⟧ 2 ⟦line⟧
Page 129
Lawyer
Muhammad Siddiq Shanshal
Rafidain Bank Building - Eighth Floor
Telephone { Office 83721
Residence 22696
Baghdad on ⟦line⟧
— 2 —
C — It was stated in the decision of your esteemed court upholding the aforementioned judgment: —
"And whereas this agreement requires the trustee to obtain prior permission from the Lay Council of the Mosaic community
in Baghdad, currently replaced by the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews according to the provisions of the two specific arguments
regarding the aforementioned endowment issued by the Sharia Court in Baghdad and the Personal Status Court, and because the agreement occurred without
obtaining permission in accordance with the conditions of the endowment, therefore the agreement is considered not concluded with respect to the endowment."
It is clear from reviewing the decisions issued in this lawsuit that the Court of First Instance issued its decision
dismissing my client's lawsuit — the petitioner for correction — for the agent exceeding the limits of his power of attorney and charged him to seek recourse against the aforementioned agent
without the endowment and without the trustee. While the Court of Appeals went in its decision upholding the aforementioned
judgment of first instance to state that: —
"The act of the trustee's agent in leasing the endowed properties by way of assignment is not considered a departure from the power of attorney given to him."
Therefore, it charged the petitioner for correction to seek recourse against the trustee without his agent and without the endowment.
I place this clear contradiction before your esteemed court, requesting to note what was stated in your court's decision regarding:
"This agreement requires the trustee to obtain prior permission from the Lay Council of the Mosaic community."
While the judgment of the Court of Appeals, upheld in cassation, included the following statement:
"And whereas by referring to the endowment deed... it was devoid of anything indicating a restriction on the trustee in exercising
his rights... and it did not appear therein that the trustee's rights, which were established by Islamic Sharia, had been restricted; accordingly,
the trustee's rights were not subject to any of the restrictions that prevent the trustee or his agent from leasing
the properties or assigning them in exchange for a specific amount."
It is clear from the above that the decision requested to be corrected contradicts itself, and that the dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit
in the stages of the lawsuit was based on reasons that explicitly contradict each other, which in itself requires
the correction of the decision.
2 — The trustee is the adversary whose admission results in a judgment:
Since the trustee is the one whose capacity as an adversary is valid with respect to the endowment property (Article — 2 Paragraph — 3 of Civil Procedure),
this lawsuit was filed against the trustee of the Menahem Daniel endowments in addition to his trusteeship, and therefore the endowment entity
is considered an adversary in the lawsuit since its filing. And since the power of attorney for litigation includes the authorization for admission (Article —
86 Paragraph — 1 of Civil Procedure). And whereas the adversary's admission results in a judgment (Article — 2 Paragraph — 3 of Civil Procedure),
and admission as defined by the Civil Code is "the notification of the adversary before the court of a right against him for another" (Article — 461 Civil),
and since the defendant, before his dismissal, had admitted before the Court of First Instance the validity of the plaintiff's lawsuit and the contracts to which
he referred, and recorded his admission in its minutes, and its decision referred to it, then what the Court of Appeals went to in that
"these verbal actions by the trustee do not bind the endowment" contradicts the provisions of the Law of Civil Procedure in its attempt
to justify what it went to as being "based on the principles of Islamic Sharia which must be adopted according to the period
⟦illegible⟧
Page 130
Lawyer
Muhammad Siddiq Shanshal
Rafidain Bank Building - Eighth Floor
Telephone { Office 83721
Residence 22696
Baghdad on:
- 3 -
The second of Article One of the Civil Code "violates the provisions of the Civil Code and the article upon which it was based
specifically, as this article stated in its second paragraph the following:
"If there is no applicable legislative text, the court shall rule according to custom, and if none exists, then according to
the principles of Islamic Sharia."
While the esteemed Court of Appeal has set aside the explicit provisions of the law and proceeded
to apply the provisions of Islamic Sharia in its ruling, ignoring the admission of the endowment (Waqf) trustee before
the court at a time when he was exercising the right of trusteeship and before he was dismissed from it.
3 - How the Court of Appeal inferred the apparent state of affairs:
It became clear from the above that the Court of Appeal neglected the defendant's admission, relying on its statement:
"His admission is contradicted by the apparent state of the endowment's funds... that the payment of the claimed amount to the appellant
is a matter that was not confirmed... and without this amount appearing in the endowment's budget."
It is evident from this that the esteemed Court of Appeal did not notice that the trustee is the one who represents
the endowment, and in this capacity, he contracted with the petitioner for correction, and in this capacity, he admitted before the Court of First Instance when
the lawsuit was filed against him in his capacity as the trustee of the endowment regarding the validity of the contract and the receipt of the amount. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal
did not notice that the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews had entered into this lawsuit initially after the dismissal of the trustee,
acknowledging thereby:
(1) - The validity of the litigation against the trustee in addition to the endowment.
(2) - Considering its litigation as a continuation of the litigation of the aforementioned trustee.
As for the matter of the budget and its organization, it is a matter for which the petitioner for correction is not responsible. Even if we assume that the contracting took place
between him and the aforementioned committee itself, and then this committee refrained from organizing the budget, it would not have the right
to claim the invalidity of the contract or the non-receipt of the amount after admitting its receipt merely due to the failure to organize the budget.
It is well known that the failure of funds paid to state treasury officials themselves to appear did not lead at
any time to considering the payers of these funds responsible for their failure to appear in the state treasury.
It is sufficient for the petitioner for correction to present the contract certified by the notary public regarding the payment of the amount,
especially after this contract was confirmed before the judiciary by the admission of the trustee's attorney before the Court of First Instance regarding the validity
of the contract and the receipt of the amount.
It is clear from the above that the Court of Appeal's judgment was based on the endowment trustee's refusal to submit
the budget, which is a matter that cannot impose any responsibility on the petitioner for correction, as it was not in his power:
(1) - To stipulate that the trustee submit the budget.
(2) - To be aware of the trustee's responsibility for this budget.
(3) - Or to act on behalf of the trustee in submitting the budget.
⟦signature⟧
⟦illegible stamp⟧
10/10
Page 131
Lawyer
Muhammad Siddiq Shanshal
Rafidain Bank Building - Eighth Floor
Telephone { Office 83721
Residence 22696
Baghdad on:
- 4 -
Since the appellate judgment, like the initial judgment, has been upheld, and because each of them relied on reasons that contradict the reasons
of the other, the cassation decision has legally become subject to correction.
4- The condition of permission was not mentioned in the endowment deed:
What your esteemed court concluded regarding "that this agreement requires the trustee to obtain prior permission
from the Lay Council" has no text in the two deeds specific to the endowment, and all that was mentioned in these two
deeds is the following:
"The trustees in office at that time must submit to the Lay Council of the Jewish community in Baghdad
the annual budget previously discussed for all its contents for auditing and approval
by the aforementioned Council."
It is clear from this that submitting and auditing the budget is one thing, and the condition of permission, which was never mentioned
at all in them, is another thing, and that the dispute over submitting the budget or not submitting it, and its approval or rejection
by the Lay Council, has no relation to the parties involved other than the trustee and the aforementioned Council.
Furthermore, we would like to draw the esteemed court's attention to the fact that the lease contracts for the shops and properties of the endowment
were concluded between the tenants and the endowers through the previous trustee and via his agent, just as the contract
subject of this lawsuit was concluded. None of those contracts were accompanied by prior permission from the Lay Council or the Administrative
Committee for Jews or any other entity. Despite this, those contracts remained standing, valid, and effective;
they were not canceled nor subjected to the condition of permission, and the endowment continued to collect their amounts. What happened under the contract
subject of the lawsuit is that the applicant for correction took the place of the endowment in demanding the tenants to implement those contracts,
a demand intended for the benefit of the endowment and not to harm it.
Applying the principle adopted by your esteemed court would necessitate considering all contracts related
to the leasing of endowment properties as not concluded, and would give the endowment the right to pursue all tenants
and demand they re-pay the amounts from the date of their lease on the grounds that the trustee exceeded his powers and did not obtain
prior permission. If it is said that this is considered an abuse of the rights of other tenants, then it must
likewise be considered an abuse of the rights of the applicant for correction.
5- The judgment fell into a fundamental error:
Upon examining the appellate decision upheld in cassation, it becomes clear that it:
A - Ruled on matters not claimed by the litigants (Article 222, Paragraph 5 of the Civil Procedure Code):
The Court of Appeal's decision stated that "the payment of the claimed amount to the appellee was not confirmed,"
whereas the appellee never pleaded that at all; rather, his agents explicitly admitted before the Court of First Instance
the defendant's acknowledgment in their memorandum dated 11/19/1963, which stated:
"And this acknowledgment is valid within the limits that the trustee or his agent is permitted to perform."
⟦...⟧
⟦signature⟧
Page 132
Lawyer
Muhammad Siddiq Shanshal
Rafidain Bank Building - Eighth Floor
Telephone { Office 83721
Residence 22696
Baghdad on:
- 5 -
Since the admission of the Mutawalli's agent was made within the limits of what he is permitted to do, as stated in the decision of
the Court of Appeal, it is not consistent with the aforementioned decision nor with the provisions of the law to say that the admission is invalid
due to the non-appearance of the funds in the Waqf budget if the Mutawalli refrained from submitting them to the Spiritual Council
or the Administrative Committee.
B - It ruled contrary to the significance of the papers and documents submitted:
It is not hidden from your esteemed court that the court may not limit the facts except through the litigants themselves
or outside the evidence and documents they submitted, because those documents are the private law to which the
contracting parties committed themselves. If the court interprets the contract or any of its conditions contrary to its meaning or relies
on something contrary to the significance of the papers, then the judgment must be overturned (Article 222, Paragraph - 5 of Civil Procedure).
Since the Court of Appeal went in its decision, contrary to the papers and documents submitted, to say:
(1) - That the payment of the claimed amount to the appellee is a matter that has not been confirmed.
(2) - The existence of the amount did not appear in the Waqf budget.
(3) - Verbal actions by the Mutawalli do not bind the Waqf.
Therefore, the appellate decision becomes subject to reversal, and consequently, the cassation decision becomes subject to correction from
this aspect, in addition to the other aspects referred to above.
For what has been presented and what was stated in the previous petitions of the applicant for correction, and for what your respected court sees, I request the issuance of
the decision to correct the cassation decision and to charge the respondents - against whom the correction of the decision is requested - all
expenses, fees, attorney's fees, and legal interest. ⟦Please bring the Karkh Court of First Instance file numbered 45 / B / 61⟧
⟦and the Baghdad Court of Appeal file numbered 11 / S / 621 and a copy of the Waqf records numbered 87 / 925.⟧
Please accept the highest respect
Lawyer
Muhammad Siddiq Shanshal
Agent of the applicant for correction of the decision
⟦signature⟧
1965/5/26
Applicant for correction of the decision
Lawyer Habib Habib Al-Obaidi
⟦signature⟧
Page 133
Lawyers' Office
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Hadi Latif
Mustansir Street - Sabri Tuaima Building
Telephone 82280 - 81442
Advocate Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Advocate Hadi Latif
Sabri Bldg. - Mustansir Street
Tel. { 82280
{ 81442
Number: 11 / L / 189 / 65
Date: 13 / 6 / 1965
The Honorable President of the Court of Cassation of Iraq
Subject / Response brief from the agents of the respondent in the notification
Numbered ⟦1482 / J / 1965⟧
Applicant for correction of the decision: The Appellant: - Lawyer Hamid Majeed Al-Obaidi.
The Respondent: - The Appellee: - President of the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews - in addition to his guardianship over
the endowments of Menachem and Sassoon Daniel, his agents the lawyers Hassan Abdullah
Muthafar, Shaul Moussa, and Muhammad Salem Zaidan.
We have been notified of the brief requesting correction of decision No. 1482 / J / 65. What is stated therein is legally inadmissible
and warrants rejection for the following legal reasons: -
First: - The request for correction of the decision is not based on any of the grounds for correction: -
Challenging by correction of the decision is considered one of the extraordinary methods of appeal, as the decision of the Court of
Cassation is intended to finalize the case after it has been adjudicated by the highest judicial authority.
A request to correct a decision of the Court of Cassation must be based on one of the grounds stipulated in paragraph
1 - of Article 231 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The reasons cited by the applicant for correction in his brief do not constitute any of the mentioned grounds for correction.
It appears that the applicant for correction considered the difference in the grounds of the judgment at the trial, appeal, and cassation levels
as a contradiction, and that this difference, in his opinion, warrants a request for correction. He has overlooked that the Court of
Cassation did not uphold the judgment in terms of the result only, and that the reason it adopted in upholding the judgment
is intended to be added to the grounds of the trial and appellate judgments.
The text of paragraph 4 of Article 231 is clear, as it states: -
(That the decision requested to be corrected is contradictory to itself, or that it is contradictory
to a previous decision of the Court of Cassation issued in the same case without the parties changing in identity
or capacity).
To be continued
Page 134
- 2 -
What the correction seeker stated in his brief and what he called the existence of a contradiction in the legal basis, interpreting that
contradiction by what was mentioned in the reasons for dismissing the lawsuit in the decision of the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal, and by the Court of
Cassation, is not legally applicable for the following reasons:
A - Paragraph (4) of Article 231-A stipulates that the contradiction must be in the same decision requested
to be corrected, and the cassation decision subject to correction does not contradict itself, but rather presented the facts
of the lawsuit and upheld the judgment relying on a reason added to the reasons for dismissing the lawsuit initially and the confirmation
of the judgment on appeal. Furthermore, the reason adopted by your esteemed court in upholding the judgment is a correct
reason with no contradiction in it, because the actions of the dismissed trustee require prior permission from the Spiritual
Council, in whose place the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews stands, as it is the supervisor in accordance with the
Endowment Deed, as will be detailed in the following paragraph.
B - The cassation decision subject to the correction request is the only decision in this lawsuit, and there is
no other cassation decision issued in the same lawsuit.
From all this, it is clear to your esteemed court that there is no contradiction in the judgment of the Court of Cassation, nor any contradiction in any
other form stipulated in Paragraph 4 of Article 231-A of the Civil Procedure Law.
The judgments of your esteemed court, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of First Instance issued in this lawsuit
are all grounds for dismissing the lawsuit based on the legal reasons they contained.
Second: The Court of Cassation decision No. 1972/H/64 and the Endowment Deed:
The decision of your esteemed court, in terms of the legal reasons it contained, is in accordance with the law and the Endowment Deed
No. 87/Sh/35, which obligated the trustee to obtain prior permission from the supervisor for all actions
he takes regarding the endowment, within its requirement for the trustee to submit a budget including the revenues
expected to be obtained from the endowed properties, i.e., rental fees and others, as well as expenses, and that
at least two months before the beginning of the year to which those revenues belong, and he (i.e., the
trustee) may not act upon it except after the approval of the supervisor (the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews
standing in place of the Spiritual Council) and the issuance of permission accordingly. He must also obtain prior
permission for all new matters and actions that arise after the approval of the aforementioned budget by the supervisor
as we mentioned earlier.
On this occasion, it must be clarified that what the correction seeker argued in the fourth paragraph of
his brief regarding the lack of necessity to obtain prior permission from the supervisor and his citation of a sentence
To be continued
Page 135
- 2 -
⟦...⟧ from the endowment deed is a matter contrary to truth and reality. Since the petitioner for correction overlooked that the endowment
deed stipulated prior permission for the actions of the trustee in the event that the trusteeship is transferred to the descendants of
one of the two trustees serving at that time (namely Ezra Menachem Daniel and Saleh Shlomo) who passed away
and the trusteeship was transferred after them to Emil Saleh Shlomo, the dismissed trustee in 1955. The detail of that
is that when the trusteeship was in the custody of the two aforementioned former trustees, the endowment deed stipulated that they
submit a budget to the Corporeal Council, which is the supervisor, for the purpose of approval only.
But the matter differed when the trusteeship was transferred to the descendants of one of them after their death, namely the
dismissed trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo, as the endowment deed stipulated in this case the necessity of obtaining prior permission
from the supervisor, which is the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews, for all actions he carries out
regarding the endowment. On this occasion, we point out that the dismissed trustee's failure to obtain the stipulated prior permission
was the reason for his dismissal from the trusteeship.
And since the transaction subject of the lawsuit occurred during the term of Emil Saleh Shlomo's trusteeship and not during the term of the two former
trustees, the endowment condition requiring the necessity of obtaining prior permission is what must be applied.
We have cited all of this not as a response to the petitioner's memorandum, but rather we saw it as a duty to present the full legal
facts in a manner consistent with the provisions of the law and the endowment deed so that your esteemed court
may be fully aware of the matter.
From all of the above, it appears to your esteemed court that the request for correction is not based on any of the grounds for
correction exclusively limited in Article 231.
Therefore, we request the rejection of the request and that the petitioner for correction bears the costs.
With respect,
Agents for the Administrative
Committee for Iraqi Jews
Lawyer | Lawyer | Lawyer
Mohammed Salem Zaidan | Shaul Messi | Hassan Abdullah Mazhar
Page 136
Advocate Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Advocate Hadi Latif
Sabri Bldg. - Mustansir Street
Tel. { 82280 / 81442
Lawyers' Office
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Hadi Latif
Mustansir Street - Sabri Tu'aima Building
Telephone 82280 - 81442
Number: 159 / K / 65
Date: 25 / 5 / 1965
To the Honorable Head of Karkh Execution
Subject / File Number 199/61
Mr. Hamid Al-Obaidi, the lawyer, had filed a lawsuit in the Karkh Court of First Instance under number 45/961 against the trustee of the Menahem and Sassoon Daniel endowments (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews). The aforementioned court placed a precautionary seizure on the revenues of the endowments, and the tenants began depositing the rents due from them into the aforementioned court's treasury for the account of the aforementioned lawsuit.
A judgment was issued dismissing the aforementioned lawsuit, charging the plaintiff with the trial expenses and attorney fees, and lifting the precautionary seizure placed in the aforementioned file. The judgment was upheld on appeal in file number 11/S/62 by the Baghdad Court of Appeal and was affirmed by the Court of Cassation in the cassation file numbered 1972/64. Thus, the aforementioned judgment has acquired finality. The Court of Cassation's affirmation stated (that all actions of the former trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo, as well as his agent Edward Yaqoub, require them to obtain prior permission from the Lay Council of the Mosaic Community in Baghdad (currently replaced by the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews) according to the provisions of the two specific endowment deeds issued by the Sharia Court in Baghdad and the Personal Status Court. Since the agreement (the subject of the dismissed lawsuit) was made without obtaining permission according to the endowment conditions, the agreement is considered not concluded with respect to the endowment).
In light of this cassation judgment, all actions taken by the dismissed trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo or his agent Edward Yaqoub have become non-binding and not concluded for the new trustee (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews) as long as they were not preceded by the required permission as decided ⟦in implementation⟧ of the endowment deed.
Your honorable presidency decided in the execution file to place an executive seizure on an amount of 1545/515 Dinars from the amounts accumulated in the first instance file 45/B/61, in which all the amounts formed therein have become an undisputed right of our client, the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews.
Based on the judgment of the Court of Cassation (a copy of which is attached), the document executed in file 199/61 is such that it binds the former trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo and his agent Edward Yaqoub personally without transferring
To be continued
Page 137
- 2 -
this responsibility to the new trustee (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews).
Accordingly, there is no responsibility on the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews to settle claims alleged by some against the previous
trustee as long as they were not preceded by its permission.
Therefore, your presidency has no right to withdraw the mentioned amount from the preliminary file numbered 45/B/1961.
Thus, we request a review of the matter from a legal perspective, hoping you will kindly cancel the decision taken in this regard
and return the amount to the file from which it was withdrawn. We also hope not to hand over the amount to the creditors of the
dismissed trustee in the mentioned executive file until your presidency decides on this request. In the event of not accepting what
was stated and rejecting it, we request that you grant us sufficient time to pursue the legal methods capable of ensuring our client's rights
and delaying the disbursement of the amount accordingly.
With respect,
General Counsel for
The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews
Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer
Shaul Moussa Hassan Abdullah Muzaffar Hadi Latif
⟦illegible blue handwriting⟧
28 / 1 / ⟦illegible⟧
15 / 1 / ⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible blue handwriting⟧
⟦illegible blue handwriting⟧
Page 138
- 2 -
Subject / ( ⟦illegible⟧ )
Further to our letter numbered 5/245 on 11/5/81 and dated 20/5/65
Please receive the amount sent to you under the check numbered
912165 on 18/5/65 given that the amount
due in the liability of the case is Al-Rakhwi Company
The Judge
Ismail Al-Qadi
841/81
5/7
841/81
841/81
⟦line⟧
5/7
841/81
⟦line⟧
844/81
227/5
<del>5/8</del>
5/8
Page 139
— 2 —
What the applicant for correction stated in his brief regarding what he called the existence of a contradiction in the legal basis, interpreting that
contradiction as an exclusion from the reasons for dismissing the lawsuit in the decision of the Court of First Instance, the Appeal, and by the Court of
Cassation, is legally inadmissible for the following reasons:
1 — Paragraph (4) of Article 231 — 1 — stipulates that the contradiction must be within the same decision requested
to be corrected, and the cassation decision subject to correction does not contradict itself, but rather presented the facts
of the case and upheld the judgment relying on a reason added to the reasons for dismissing the case initially and the affirmation
of the judgment on appeal. Furthermore, the reason adopted by your esteemed court in upholding the judgment is a
correct reason with no contradiction in it, because the actions of the dismissed trustee require prior permission from the
Lay Council acting as the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews in its capacity as the supreme supervisor of the
Endowment Deed, as will be detailed in the following paragraph.
B — The cassation decision subject to the correction request is the only decision in this case and
there is no other cassation decision issued in the same case.
From all this, it is clear to your esteemed court that there is no contradiction in the judgment of the Court of Cassation, nor any contradiction in any
other form stipulated in Paragraph — 4 — of Article 231 — 1 — of the Civil Procedure Law.
The judgments of your esteemed court, the Court of Appeal, and the Court of First Instance issued in this case
are all directed towards dismissing the case based on the legal reasons they contained.
Second: — The Court of Cassation decision No. 64/H/1972 and the Endowment Deed: —
The decision of your esteemed court, in terms of the legal reasons it contained, is in accordance with the law and the Endowment Deed
No. 35/Sh/87, which obligated the trustee to obtain prior permission from the supervisor for all actions
he takes regarding the endowment, within its requirement for the trustee to submit a budget including the revenues
expected to be obtained from the endowed properties, i.e., rental fees and others, as well as expenditures, at least
two months before the beginning of the year to which those revenues belong. He (i.e., the
trustee) may not act upon it except after the approval of the supervisor (the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews
acting as the Lay Council) and the issuance of permission accordingly. Prior permission must also be obtained
for all new matters and actions that arise after the approval of the aforementioned budget by the supervisor
as we previously mentioned.
On this occasion, it must be clarified that what the applicant for correction suggested in the fourth paragraph of
his brief regarding the lack of necessity to obtain prior permission from the supervisor and his citation of a sentence ⟦...⟧
To be continued
Page 140
- 3 -
on the back of the Waqf deed is a matter contrary to truth and reality. For the petitioner seeking correction has overlooked that the Waqf
deed stipulated prior permission for the actions of the trustee in the event that the trusteeship passes to the descendants
of one of the two trustees serving at that time (namely Ezra Menahem Daniel and Saleh Shlomo) both of whom died
and the trusteeship passed after them to Emil Saleh Shlomo, the trustee dismissed in 1955. The detail of that
is that when the trusteeship was in the custody of the two aforementioned former trustees, the Waqf deed required them
to submit a budget to the Corporeal Council, which is the supervisor, for the purpose of approval only.
But the matter changed when the trusteeship passed to the descendants of one of them after their death, namely the
dismissed trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo, as the Waqf deed stipulated in this case the necessity of him obtaining prior permission
from the supervisor, which is the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews, for all actions he carries out
regarding the Waqf. On this occasion, we point out that the dismissed trustee's failure to obtain the required prior
permission was the reason for his dismissal from the trusteeship.
And since the action subject of the lawsuit occurred during the tenure of Emil Saleh Shlomo and not during the tenure of the two former
trustees, the condition of the Waqf deed requiring him to obtain prior permission is the one that must be applied.
We have mentioned all this not as a response to the petitioner's memorandum, but rather we saw it as a duty to present the complete
legal facts in a manner consistent with the provisions of the law and the Waqf deed so that your esteemed court
may be fully informed of the matter.
From all the above, it is clear to your esteemed court that the request for correction is not based on any of the reasons
for correction exclusively defined in Article 231.
Therefore, we request the rejection of the request and that the petitioner seeking correction bears the costs.
With respect,
Agents for the Committee
for Iraqi Jews ⟦line⟧
The Lawyer | The Lawyer | The Lawyer
Muhammad Salem Zidan | Shaoul Moussa | Hassan Abdullah Muzaffar
Page 142
Number
1044
Seventh Year
The Republic of Iraq
The Iraqi Gazette
The Official Gazette of the Republic of Iraq issued by the Ministry of Culture and Guidance in Iraq
Registered at the Central Post Office in Baghdad under number (1)
Monday 10 Sha'ban year 1384 and 14 December year 1964
In this issue you will find:-
1 - A group of seizure decisions numbered (14, 59, 17, 58, 4, 17, 4, 60, 4, 5, 3, 2,
14, 5, 10) issued by some of the Agrarian Reform seizure committees in Karbala, Mosul, Erbil,
Diyala, Al-Hilla, Al-Diwaniyah, Kirkuk, and Baghdad.
2 - A group of appraisal decisions numbered (3, 4, 2, 1, 2, 2) issued by some of the land appraisal committees of
Agrarian Reform in Al-Kifl sub-district and the districts of Sinjar, Al-Kut Center, and Al-Hayy.
In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Number 1089
Republican Decree
Based on what was presented by the Minister of Justice
We have decreed the following:-
Jassim Mohammed Al-Akkam, District Governor of
Amadiya, and Naji Abdul Qadir Al-Hadithi, Director of Salah al-Din sub-district, are authorized
the authority of a second-class criminal judge for the purpose of implementing the provisions of
Article (41) of the Population and Titles Registration Law No. 61
of 1958, to be exercised by each of them within his administrative unit.
The Minister of Justice shall implement this decree.
Written in Baghdad on the twenty-second day of the month of
Rajab for the year 1384, corresponding to the twenty-fifth day
of the month of November for the year 1964.
Field Marshal Staff
Abdul Salam Mohammed Arif
President of the Republic
Abdul Sattar Ali Al-Hussein
Minister of Justice
Lieutenant General
Tahir Yahya
Prime Minister
⟦illegible⟧
4/12
Page 143
Al-Waqai' al-Iraqiya Issue No. 1044
3
12 / 14 / 1964
Ministerial Order
Ministerial Order No. 10310 dated 11-28-1960 is cancelled and replaced by the following:-
A committee shall be formed to consider requests for study leaves and their extensions by employees wishing to do so in this Ministry and to nominate those eligible for them in light of what was stated in paragraph (1) of Article (8) of Civil Service Instructions No. (17) of 1960 and what was stated in Civil Service Law No. (24) of 1960, as follows:-
1 - Director General of Administration at the Ministry's Headquarters - Chairman
2 - Director General of the department to which the employee belongs - Member
3 - Director of Cultural and Technical Cooperation - Member
4 - Director of Authorship and Translation - Member
5 - Director of Press - Member
6 - Chief Clerk of Administration - Secretary
Minister of Culture and Guidance
Staff Brigadier Abdul Karim Farhan
Statement No. (44) of 1964
Issued by the Secretary General for the Administration of Sequestrated Property due to measures for reforming the system of government and state security
First - Further to our statements numbered (1 and 92) of 1963 and (37) of 1964 and based on what was stated in the decisions of the Military Governor General mentioned below, which include lifting the sequestration on the movable and immovable property belonging to the persons mentioned below whose names appear in the paragraphs indicated next to them in our statements above, therefore their movable and immovable property are excluded from the provisions of our statement No. (1) of 1963 and all other statements.
A - Decision No. 8/11313 dated 11-17-964.
1308 - Hakim Mohammed Najjar.
B - Decision No. 8/11308 dated 11-17-964.
1793 - Mr. Mohammed Hashim al-Sarraf.
C - Decision No. 8/11521 dated 11-21-964
73 - Abdul Latif al-Shawaf.
Second - Further to our statement No. (40) of 1964, and based on what was stated in the letter of the Baghdad Customs and Excise Directorate No. S/1031 dated 11-11-964, the full name of the person mentioned in paragraph (1802) of our statement above is (Ibrahim Hussein Mohammed al-Samarrai - Clearance Agent).
Third - Further to our statement No. (41) of 1964, and based on what was stated in the letter of the Ministry of Culture and Guidance No. S/787 dated 11-11-1964, the full name of the person mentioned in paragraph (1810) of our statement above is (Aziz Ahmed al-Qaisi - Clerk at the Ministry of Culture and Guidance Headquarters).
Secretary General for the Administration of Sequestrated Property
Younis Abdul Razzaq al-Samarrai
Statement No. (45) of 1964
Issued by the Secretary General for the Administration of Sequestrated Property due to measures for reforming the system of government and state security
First - Further to our statements numbered (1 and 23) of 1963, and based on what was stated in the decision of the Military Governor General No. 8/11824 dated 11-28-1964, which includes lifting the sequestration on the movable and immovable property belonging to those mentioned therein whose names appear in the two paragraphs indicated next to them in our statement above, therefore their movable and immovable property are excluded from the provisions of our statement No. (1) of 1963 and all other statements.
4 - Fadhil Abbas al-Mahdawi
248 - Munira Abdul Rahim
Second - Further to our statement No. (1) of 1963. And based on what was stated in the two decisions of the Military Governor General mentioned below, which include the sequestration of movable and immovable property belonging to those mentioned therein, therefore their names are added to the names listed at the end of our statement above, and what was stated in our aforementioned statement and all other statements shall apply to them.
A - Decision No. S/8/2258 dated 11-29-1964.
1818 - Mohammed Judi
B - Decision No. S/8/2259 dated 11-29-1964.
1819 - Saleh Mahdi al-Sabbak - Owner of al-Sabbak Brick Factory / located in the al-Kifl area (Hilla).
Third - Further to our statement No. (42) of 1964, and based on what was stated in the two letters of the Special Investigative Commission in the General Pension Directorate numbered 355 and 373 dated 11-28-64 and 12-1-1964, the names of the wives and children of those mentioned in our statement above are as follows:-
A - Lawyer Dhannun Abdullah al-Dhannun
1 - His wife Fawzia Mustafa
2 - His daughter Faten
3 - His daughter Intisar
4 - His son Tahseen
5 - His son Raed
B - Qasim Ali al-Nadawi
1 - His wife Makiya Aliwi
2 - His wife Namla Ali
3 - His son Hussein
4 - His daughter Intisar
5 - His son Abdul Sattar
6 - His son Samir
7 - His daughter Hamdiya
8 - His daughter Samira
9 - His daughter Jamila
Iraqi Gazette Issue 1044
2
12/14/1964
No. 1083
Republican Decree
The Grand Court of the Hilla region sentenced on
12-17-1963 the criminal Hatif Obeid to death by hanging
until dead for killing his cousin Ni'ma Murad.
In view of the circumstances of the case and the existence of reasons calling for
sympathy, and based on what was presented by the Minister of Justice.
We have decreed as follows:-
The death penalty imposed on the criminal Hatif
Obeid is commuted to life imprisonment with hard labor.
The Ministers of Justice, Labor and Social Affairs shall
implement this decree.
Written in Baghdad on the fifth day of the month of Rajab for the year
1384, corresponding to the eighth day of the month of November
for the year 1964.
Staff Marshal
Abdul Salam Muhammad Arif
President of the Republic
Lieutenant General
Kamil Al-Khatib | Tahir Yahya
Minister of Justice | Prime Minister
Abdul Karim Hani
Minister of Labor and Social Affairs
No. 1091
Republican Decree
Based on what was presented by the Minister of Justice
We have decreed as follows:-
Each of Muhammad Khidr Dazali, Director of Al-Shafi'iyah Sub-district,
and Abdul Amir Mohsen, Director of Sirwan Sub-district, is granted the authority
of a Justice of the Peace for the purpose of exercising the powers set forth in paragraph
(A) of Article (45) of the Agrarian Reform Law No. 30
of 1958 No. 143 of 1963, to be exercised within
his administrative unit.
The Minister of Justice shall implement this decree.
Written in Baghdad on the fourteenth day of the month of Rajab
for the year 1384, corresponding to the seventeenth day of the month of
November for the year 1964.
Staff Marshal
Abdul Salam Muhammad Arif
President of the Republic
Lieutenant General
Abdul Sattar Ali Al-Hussein | Tahir Yahya
Minister of Justice | Prime Minister
No. 1084
Republican Decree
Based on what was presented by the Minister of Defense
We have decreed as follows:-
Reinstating retired Lieutenant Abdul Amir Muhammad Hussein to
service in the army.
The Minister of Defense shall implement this decree.
Written in Baghdad on the eighth day of the month of Rajab for the year
1384, corresponding to the eleventh day of the month of November
for the year 1964.
Staff Marshal
Abdul Salam Muhammad Arif
President of the Republic
Lieutenant General
Tahir Yahya
Prime Minister
and Acting Minister of Defense
No. 1096
Republican Decree
Based on what was presented by the Minister of Justice
We have decreed as follows:-
Nasrallah Hashim Al-Nawab, Director of Al-Qayyarah Sub-district, is granted
the authority of a second-class criminal judge for the purpose of applying the provisions of
the Law for the Protection and Development of Agricultural Production No. 99 of the year
1963, to be exercised within his administrative unit area.
The Minister of Justice shall implement this decree.
Written in Baghdad on the eighteenth day of the month of Rajab
for the year 1384, corresponding to the twenty-first day of the month of
November for the year 1964.
Staff Marshal
Abdul Salam Muhammad Arif
President of the Republic
Lieutenant General
Abdul Sattar Ali Al-Hussein | Tahir Yahya
Minister of Justice | Prime Minister
Page 144
- 10 -
Seizure Decision Supplement
Decision Supplement Number - 14
Decision Supplement Date - 31 / 5 / 1964
The Karbala Seizure Committee met on 31 / 5 / 1964, formed by Diwani Order No. 8628 dated
6 / 5 / 1960, chaired by Mr. Fouad Ali Abboud Al-Hayawi, with the membership of Mr. Abdul Hadi Al-Sharqi, the administrative member
(Al-Hussainiya Sub-district Directorate), and Mr. Abdul Hussein Habib Al-Mu'min, the surveyor member, for the purpose of issuing the supplement to the seizure decision on what
exceeded the maximum limit of the lands of the confessors Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi and Al-Alawiya Sajida Mr. Ahmed Wafi
Al-Rushdi and Haybat daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and Mr. Muhammad Kadhim Faydi Mr. Qasim Al-Rushdi and Al-Alawiya Bayhan daughter of
Mr. Qasim Al-Rushdi, whose submission to seizure was announced by the two decisions of the High Commission for Agrarian Reform published in the Official Gazette
in issues numbered 191 and 565 dated 30 / 6 / 59 and 30 / 8 / 961. After noting what was stated in the seizure minutes,
the committee issued its following decision supplement:-
First 1- In view of the death of Al-Alawiya Khalida Mr. Muhammad Mahdi Al-Rushdi, leaving as holders of the right of transfer her mother
Najiba daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and her brothers Messrs. Saleh, Haider, Talib, Alia, and Bikam, children of Mr. Mahdi Al-Rushdi,
as stated in the legal distribution of inheritance No. 273 / 959 dated 22 / 8 / 1959 issued by the Sharia Court in Karbala.
Therefore, their inheritance matter becomes out of ten shares, five of which go to Najiba daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and one share
to each of Saleh, Haider, Talib, Alia, and Bikam, children of Mr. Muhammad Mahdi Al-Rushdi.
2 - In view of the death of Al-Alawiya Bikam Mr. Muhammad Mahdi Al-Rushdi, leaving as holders of the right of transfer her mother Najiba
daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, her husband Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi, and her children Samir, Qasim, Basim, Samira,
Ahmed, and Basima, children of Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi, according to what was stated in the legal distribution No. 79 / 960 dated
24 / 2 / 960 issued by the Sharia Court in Karbala. Therefore, their inheritance matter becomes based on seventy-two shares,
twelve of which go to Najiba Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, eighteen shares to Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi, and seven
shares to each of Qasim, Basim, Samir, Ahmed, Samira, and Basima.
3 - In view of the death of Zainab Mr. Ahmed Mr. Kadhim Al-Rushdi, according to the legal distribution No. 250 / 58 dated
9-11-958 issued by the Karbala Sharia Court, leaving as holders of the right of transfer her children Ahmed, Haybat, and Najiba, children of
Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, and the death of the aforementioned Ahmed without offspring, and the limitation of his heirs to his wife Khadija daughter of Abdul Jalil Al-Souz
and his two sisters Haybat and Najiba, daughters of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz. Therefore, their inheritance matter becomes based on twelve shares, two of which
go to Khadija daughter of Abdul Jalil Al-Souz and five shares to each of Haybat and Najiba, daughters of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz.
4 - In view of the death of Mr. Ahmed Wafi Mr. Qasim Al-Rushdi, leaving as holders of the right of transfer his wife Haybat
Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and his two children Mr. Ali and Al-Alawiya Sajida, according to what was stated in the legal distribution No. 207 / 57 dated
28 / 7 / 957 issued by the Sharia Court in Karbala. Therefore, their inheritance matter becomes based on eight shares,
two of which go to Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and three shares to each of Mr. Ali and Al-Alawiya Sajida.
5 - In view of the death of Mr. Qasim Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi, leaving as holders of the right of transfer Muhammad Kadhim
Faydi, Mr. Muhammad Mahdi, Mr. Ahmed Wafi, and Al-Alawiya Bayhan, according to what was stated in the legal distribution No. 18 dated
25 / 1 / 947. Therefore, their inheritance matter becomes based on four shares, one share for each of the aforementioned individuals.
6 - In view of the death of Mr. Muhammad Mahdi Qasim Al-Rushdi, leaving as holders of the right of transfer his two wives Amra daughter of Hazza
and Najiba daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, and his children Messrs. Saleh, Haider, Talib, Bikam, Alia, and Khalida. Therefore, their inheritance
matter becomes based on sixteen shares, two of which go to each of Amra daughter of Hazza and Najiba daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, and two shares
to each of Saleh, Haider, Talib, Bikam, Alia, and Khalida.
7 - From all the above, and after unifying the distributions referred to in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 and doubling the old consideration
in plots numbered 75, 87, 88, 90, 36, 45, 1, 2, and 12 of District No. 68 / Al-Hussainiya, and plots numbered 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of District No. 35 / Al-Hussainiya, and the two plots numbered 27 and 24 of District 36 / Al-Hussainiya,
and plots 20, 21, 22, and 24 of District 69 / Al-Hussainiya, and plots 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 21, 54, and 102
of District No. 70 / Al-Hussainiya, and plot 69 of District 71 / Al-Hussainiya, their ownership becomes based on 15,482,880 shares,
of which 1,311,744 shares go to Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, 1,358,370 shares to Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmed Wafi Al-Rushdi,
1,257,984 shares to Sajida Al-Rushdi, 3,354,624 shares to Muhammad Kadhim Faydi Al-Rushdi, 3,354,624 shares to Bayhan
Al-Rushdi, 401,544 shares to Mr. Saleh, 401,544 shares to Mr. Haider, 401,544 shares to Mr. Talib, and 401,544
shares to Alia, children of Mr. Muhammad Mahdi Al-Rushdi, 1,141,860 shares to Najiba Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, 745,056 shares to Amra
daughter of Hazza, 1,032,192 shares to Maryam Mr. Ahmed Mr. Kadhim, 86,016 shares to Khadija daughter of Abdul Jalil Al-Souz, and
39,039 shares to Samir, 39,039 shares to Qasim, 39,039 shares to Basim, 39,039 shares to Ahmed, 39,039 shares
to Samira, and 39,039 shares to Basima, children of Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi. After noting the distributions mentioned in paragraphs numbered
1, 2, and 3 referred to above and unifying them with the original consideration of the two plots numbered 8 and 3 of District No. 35 / Al-Hussainiya,
their ownership becomes based on 15,482,880 shares, of which 2,436,396 shares go to Najiba Abdul Hussein Al-Souz and 2,235,168 shares
Al-Waqai' al-Iraqiya Issue No. 1044
4
12/14/1964
C - Retiree Jawhar Ghanem
1 - His wife Zanouba Awreen Askar
2 - His daughter Khairiya
3 - His daughter Sakna
4 - His daughter Salima
D - Lawyer Hamid al-Obaidi
1 - His wife Laila Habib
2 - His son Majid
3 - His daughter Jinan
Secretary General for the Administration of Seized Property
Younis Abdul Razzaq al-Samarrai
Statement No. (387) of 1964
Based on the requirements of the public interest and based on the decision of the Higher Supply Committee No. 484 dated 10/29/1964. It has been decided to remove the Norwegian ship PEIX from the blacklist after it submitted the necessary undertakings. Note that it was listed on the blacklist pursuant to our statement No. 37 issued in issue 801 dated 3/11/1964.
Regional Liaison Officer
Statement No. (384) of 1964
Based on the requirements of the public interest and based on the decision of the Higher Supply Committee No. 481 dated 10/29/1964, it has been decided to ban dealing with the French company Société Agrunord, provided that the ban includes all its branches and companies that participate with it, and considering 11/26/1964 as the date for implementing the ban.
Regional Liaison Officer
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 11280 Group / 2 belonging to the depositor Mr. Wafi Al-Sayyid Jawad al-Majidi has been lost from him, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 41412 Group / 1 belonging to the depositor Abdul Qadir Ahmed Izzat has been lost from him, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Statement No. (385) of 1964
Based on the requirements of the public interest and based on the decision of the Higher Supply Committee No. 428 dated 9/13/1964, it has been decided to include the following six companies in the list of companies prohibited from being dealt with as they are branches of companies owned by or participated in by the person named CHARLES CLORE
1. PRINCE OF WALES THE ATRE (PROPERTIES) LTD.
2. GT. BECKHAM HOLDING LTD.
3. WILDT & CO. LTD.
4. MELLOR BROMBLEY CO.
5. TOKEN HOLDINGS LTD.
6. GILIETT STEVEN & CO. LTD.
Regional Liaison Officer
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 819 Group / 5 belonging to the depositor Al-Fayhaa School, the agent Aliyah Ismail al-Ghazali, has been lost from her, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 11670 Group / 2 belonging to the depositor Majida Saeed Youssef al-Jubouri has been lost from her, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Statement No. (386) of 1964
Based on the requirements of the public interest and based on the decision of the Higher Supply Committee No. 491 dated 10/29/1964, it has been decided to lift the ban imposed on the Swedish company NORDAR MATUR, provided that this includes all its branches and companies that participate with it materially or morally. The date 10/1/1964 was set as the date for implementing the lifting of the ban.
Note that it was listed on the blacklist pursuant to our statement No. (209) issued under No. 2908 dated 9/28/1963.
Regional Liaison Officer
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 43043 Group / 1 belonging to the depositor Amal Abdul Wahab Abdul Hamid has been lost from her, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Announcement
The Director General of the Post, Telegraph and Telephone Service announces that the savings box book No. 491 Group / 5 belonging to the depositor Ali Jawad Darzi has been lost from him, and another book will be issued in its place if no objection is submitted to this service or to the departments from which it was issued within a period of one month from the date of publication of this announcement.
Republic of Iraq - Government Press
Page 145
- 3 -
After observing the statutory distribution mentioned in the second paragraph and unifying it with the original consideration of plot number 100 of
District No. 12/ Bab al-Khan, which was subdivided into two plots with numbers 100/1 and 100/2, and plot number 100/2 became
in the name of the General Provincial Administrative Council with an area of (15) Olks. As for plot number 100/1, it was registered as an endowment (waqf), and its
endowment was liquidated and subdivided together according to the decision of the Karbala Court of First Instance No. 134/B/1959 dated 12-21-1959. Based
on the aforementioned decision, the new subdivisions for this plot became from (3-54/100), and the plots numbered
100/12, 100/13, 100/34, 100/24, 100/48, 100/53, 100/44, 100/43, 100/50, and 100/51
belong to the endowment, as they were registered in the name of the Karbala Endowments Directorate. As for plot number 100/54, it went to the road and was registered
in the name of the Karbala Municipality. As for the other remaining plots, they were registered in the names of the beneficiaries as pure property (mulk sirf) and their ownership as
3024 shares distributed as follows:-
864 shares to Muhammad Kazim Faydi and 432 shares to Bayhan, children of Mr. Qasim; 524 shares to Mr. Ali and 288
shares to Sajida, children of Mr. Ahmad; and in 144 shares to Salih, 142 shares to Haidar, 144 shares to Talib, and 72
shares to Alia, children of Mr. Muhammad Mahdi; 12 shares to Najiba daughter of Abdul Hussein al-Souz; 7 shares to Qasim, 7 shares
to Basim, 7 shares to Samir, 7 shares to Ahmad, 7 shares to Samira, and 7 shares to Basima, children of Mr. Ali al-Rushdi;
and 288 shares to Amrah daughter of Hazza. This is with the knowledge that plot number 100/2, which was registered in the name of the General Provincial Administrative Council,
was expropriated by the aforementioned Provincial Council after July 14, 1958; therefore, the area of this plot is calculated within the
maximum limit prescribed for them by law.
The committee agreed to set aside what the declarants retained within the maximum limit prescribed for them by law and set it aside for them in the
following manner:-
A - The declarant Muhammad Kazim Faydi al-Sayyid Qasim al-Rushdi:
1 - His common shares amounting to 5760 shares out of 23040 shares, which are equivalent to 50/37/8/3 Donums in plot
number 100 of District No. 7 Bab al-Salalmah, whose total area is 50/8/13 Donums, and its category is Miri (state land) delegated
by Tapu, and its description is an orchard irrigated by flow.
2 - His common shares amounting to 819 shares out of 1260 shares, which are equivalent to 30/46/17/3 Donums of plot
number 29 of District No. 36 al-Mahmoudiya and al-Mustajid, whose total area is 25/17/5 Donums, and its category is Miri
delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow.
3 - His common shares amounting to 864 shares out of 3024 shares, which are equivalent to -/87/74/16 Donums in plot
number 100/1 of District No. 12 Bab al-Khan, whose endowment was liquidated according to the decision of the Karbala Court of First Instance No.
134/B/959 dated 12-21-1959, and subdivided after liquidation into the plots listed below, as well as plot number
100/2, which was expropriated by the General Provincial Administrative Council according to entry No. 146 September 1959 and sequence 137.
These plots are as follows:-
Plot Number | Total Area | The declarant's share of it
| Donum | Olk | Meter | Decimeter | Donum | Olk | Meter | Decimeter
100/3 | — | 1 | 6 | 9 | — | — | 30 | 31
100/4 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/5 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/6 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/7 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/8 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/9 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/10 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/11 | — | 1 | — | 94 | — | — | 28 | 84
100/15 | — | 1 | 5 | — | — | — | 30 | —
100/16 | — | 1 | 30 | 94 | — | — | 37 | 41
100/17 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
100/18 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
100/19 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
100/20 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
100/21 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
100/22 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | 28 | 57
- 2 -
to Amrah bint Hazza and 12,046,322 shares to Salih and 12,046,322 shares to Talib and 12,046,322 shares to Haidar
and 12,046,322 shares to Aliyah, children of Muhammad Mahdi al-Rushdi, and 301,158 shares to Mr. Ali al-Rushdi and 117,117 shares
to Samir and 117,117 shares to Qasim and 117,117 shares to Basim and 117,117 shares to Ahmad and 117,117 shares to
Basimah and 117,117 shares to Samira, children of Mr. Ali al-Rushdi, and 3,354,624 shares to Bayhan al-Rushdi and 1,032,192
shares to Maryam bint Mr. Ahmad and 430,080 shares to Haybat Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 172,032 shares to Khadija bint
Abdul Jalil. After observing the statutory distribution mentioned in the third paragraph and unifying it with the original status of the plots numbered
1, 4, and 5 of District 35/ Al-Husseiniya and plot number 29 of District 36/ Al-Husseiniya, their status becomes 1,260 shares distributed
as follows:
819 shares to Muhammad Kadhim Faydi al-Rushdi and 273 shares to Bayhan al-Rushdi and 84 shares to Maryam Ahmad Kadhim
and 35 shares to Haybat Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 35 shares to Najiba Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 14 shares to Khadija Abdul Jalil.
After observing the statutory distribution mentioned in the third paragraph and unifying it with the original status of plots 2 and 6 of District 35/
Al-Husseiniya, their status becomes 1,260 shares distributed as follows: 819 shares to Mr. Ali al-Rushdi and 273 shares to Bayhan
al-Rushdi and 84 shares to Maryam bint Ahmad Kadhim and 35 shares to Haybat bint Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 35 shares to Najiba
bint Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 14 shares to Khadija bint Abdul Jalil al-Souz. After observing the two distributions mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4
and unifying them with the original ownership of plot number 7 of District number 35/ Al-Wand, its status becomes 10,800 shares distributed
as follows:
2,457 shares to Mr. Ali al-Rushdi and 2,457 shares to Sajida Mr. Ali al-Rushdi and 1,918 shares to Haybat
Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 2,184 shares to Bayhan al-Rushdi and 672 shares to Maryam Ahmad Kadhim and 280 shares to Najiba
bint Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 112 shares to Khadija Abdul Jalil. After observing the statutory distribution mentioned in the fourth paragraph
and unifying it with the original status of plot number 1 of District 60/ Al-Husseiniya, its ownership becomes based on 16 shares distributed
as follows:
3 shares to Mr. Ali al-Rushdi and 3 shares to Sajida and 2 shares to Najia Abdul Hussein al-Souz and 8 purely state-owned shares
in the name of the Ministry of Finance. After observing the statutory distribution mentioned in the third paragraph and unifying it with the original ownership
of plot number 28 of District 36/ Al-Husseiniya, its status becomes 1,260 shares distributed as follows:-
273 shares to Bayhan al-Rushdi and 84 shares to Maryam bint Mr. Ahmad Kadhim and 35 shares to Najiba and 35 shares to
Haybat, daughters of Abdul Hussein al-Souz, and 14 shares to Khadija Abdul Jalil al-Souz and 819 shares to Anoud bint Rukan
Ismail. After observing the statutory distributions mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 and unifying them with the original status of the plot
numbered 100 of District numbered 1/7 Bab al-Sultana, its status becomes 33,040 shares distributed as follows: 5,760 shares to
Muhammad Kadhim Faydi al-Rushdi and 5,760 shares to Bayhan al-Rushdi and 2,160 shares to Sajida Mr. Ahmad Wafi al-Rushdi and 1,440
shares to Haybat al-Souz and 2,358 shares to Mr. Ali Mr. Ahmad Wafi al-Rushdi and 720 shares to Amrah bint Hazza and
1,212 shares to Najiba al-Souz and 792 shares to Salih and 792 shares to Haidar and 792 shares to Talib and 792 shares
to Aliyah, children of Mr. Muhammad Mahdi al-Rushdi, and 77 shares to Mr. Basim and 77 shares to Samir and 77 shares to Ahmad and 77
shares to Qasim and 77 shares to Samira and 77 shares to Basimah, children of Mr. Ali al-Rushdi. After observing the statutory distribution
mentioned in the third paragraph and unifying it with the original status of plots numbered from (1-23) and 25 and 26 of District 36/
Al-Husseiniya and plots 3, 6, 7, 25, 31, 36, 46, 69, 4, 26, 32, 37, 47, 64, 72, 5, 11, 13, 58, 29,
35, 40, 68, 8, 9, 17, 45, 67, 63, 150, 116, 118, 120, 127, 128, 130, 14, 103, 123,
110, 15, 32, 33, 44, 16, 30, 42, 63, 548, 90, 142, 49, 52, 55, 57, 73, 74, 14, 4,
21, 34, 60, 2, 10, 12, 27, 38, 61, 66, 77, 79, 84, 78, 83, 90, 92, 80, 94, 95, 104, 86,
89, 91, 106, 112, 144, 125, 127, 113, 114, 88, 98, 100, 101, 93, 99, 105, 111,
122, 126, 139, 115, 133, 118, 116, 117, 120, 128, 130, 131, 81, 86, 108, 109,
104, 148, 149, and 21 of District 70/ Al-Husseiniya and plots 35, 43, 55, 57, 53, 59, 38, 39, 58, 4,
54, 56, 41, 44, 60, 42, 61, 62, 45, 48, 50, 63, 65, 66, 67, 46, 51, 47, 49, and 69 of District
71/ Al-Husseiniya and plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 13, 16, 11, 14, 12, 17, and 23 of District
69/ Al-Husseiniya and plots 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 57, 59, 64, 77, 58, 67, 78, 61, 63, 69, 76, 45,
68, 69, 70, 73, 71, 72, 74, 80, 81, 82, 85, 83, 84, 86, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 19, 27, 28,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 50, 41, 27, 43, 45, 49, 42, 46, 48, 75, 82, 141,
3, 30, 4, 7, 21, 23, 25, 29, 16, 5, 6, 23, 24, 8, 92, 26, 10, 17, and 11 of District 68/ Al-Husseiniya,
their ownership becomes based on 180 shares distributed as follows:
156 shares to Mr. Qasim Mr. Ahmad al-Rushdi and 12 shares to Maryam Mr. Ahmad Mr. Kadhim and 5 to Najiba
and 5 shares to Haybat, daughters of Abdul Hussein al-Souz, and 2 shares to Khadija bint Abdul Jalil al-Souz. This is with the knowledge that the shares
belonging to Mr. Qasim al-Rushdi, the predecessor of the declarants Faydi and Bayhan and the heirs of Mr. Ahmad Wafi (Haybat, Sajida, and Mr.
Ali) are endowed (waqf) and their endowment has not yet been liquidated; therefore, they are currently excluded from seizure, while Zainab's shares
are not endowed.
Page 146
- 5 -
3 - An area of 43/37/8 - Dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 432 shares out of 3024
shares in plot number 1/100 of District No. 12/ Bab Al-Khan, whose endowment was liquidated by a court decision
of the Karbala Court of First Instance No. 134/B/59 dated 12/21/959, and subdivided after liquidation into the plots listed below, including
plot number 2/100, which was expropriated by the General Provincial Council of Karbala Province under entry No. 146 September 959
Sequence 137.
Plot Number | General Area | Share of the Declarant
| Dsm | Meter | Olk | Donum | Dsm | Meter | Olk | Donum
100/3 | 9 | 6 | 1 | — | 15 | 15 | — | —
100/4 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/5 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/6 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/7 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/8 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/9 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/10 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/11 | 94 | — | 1 | — | 42 | 14 | — | —
100/15 | — | 5 | 1 | — | — | 15 | — | —
100/16 | 94 | 30 | 1 | — | 70 | 18 | — | —
100/17 | — | — | 1 | — | 28 | 14 | — | —
100/18 | — | — | 1 | — | 29 | 14 | — | —
100/19 | — | — | 1 | — | 28 | 14 | — | —
100/20 | — | — | 1 | — | 29 | 14 | — | —
100/21 | — | — | 1 | — | 28 | 14 | — | —
100/22 | — | — | 1 | — | 29 | 14 | — | —
100/23 | — | — | 1 | — | 28 | 14 | — | —
100/25 | 4 | 6 | 1 | — | 15 | 15 | — | —
100/26 | 50 | 2 | 1 | — | 64 | 14 | — | —
100/27 | 25 | 10 | 1 | — | 75 | 15 | — | —
100/28 | 60 | 35 | 1 | — | 37 | 19 | — | —
100/29 | 60 | 29 | 1 | — | 51 | 18 | — | —
100/30 | — | 10 | 1 | — | 71 | 15 | — | —
100/31 | 30 | 14 | 1 | — | 33 | 16 | — | —
100/32 | 41 | 1 | 1 | — | 48 | 14 | — | —
100/33 | — | — | 1 | — | 29 | 14 | — | —
100/35 | 82 | 22 | 1 | — | 54 | 17 | — | —
100/36 | 10 | 7 | 1 | — | 30 | 15 | — | —
100/37 | 20 | 9 | 1 | — | 60 | 15 | — | —
100/38 | — | — | 1 | — | 20 | 14 | — | —
100/39 | 5 | 6 | 1 | — | 15 | 15 | — | —
100/40 | — | — | 1 | — | 28 | 14 | — | —
100/41 | 5 | 6 | 1 | — | 15 | 15 | — | —
100/42 | 50 | 1 | 1 | — | 50 | 14 | — | —
100/45 | 15 | 26 | 1 | — | 2 | 18 | — | —
100/46 | 82 | 5 | 1 | — | 11 | 15 | — | —
100/47 | 82 | 5 | 1 | — | 12 | 15 | — | —
100/52 | 5 | 13 | 1 | — | 15 | 16 | — | —
100/49 | 50 | 29 | 1 | — | 50 | 18 | — | —
100/14 | — | 70 | — | — | — | 10 | — | —
100/2 | — | — | 15 | — | 29 | 14 | 2 | —
4 - Her common shares amounting to 273 shares out of 1260 shares, which is equivalent to 10/82/5/1 Dunams in plot
number 29 of District No. 36/ Al-Husseiniya, whose general area is 5/25/17 Dunams, and its class is Miri delegated
by Tapu, and its description is agricultural irrigated by flow.
5 - An area of 97/5/6/837 Dunams, representing part of the area of her common shares amounting to 273 shares
out of 1260 shares in plot number 1 of District No. 35/ Al-Husseiniya, whose general area is 4036/20/-
- 4 -
Plot Number | General Area | Share of the Confessor
| Decim | Meter | Olak | Donum | Decim | Meter | Olak | Donum
100/23 | — | — | 1 | — | 57 | 28 | — | —
100/25 | 4 | 6 | 1 | — | 29 | 30 | — | —
100/26 | 50 | 2 | 1 | — | 28 | 29 | — | —
100/27 | 25 | 10 | 1 | — | 50 | 31 | — | —
100/28 | 60 | 35 | 1 | — | 74 | 38 | — | —
100/29 | 60 | 29 | 1 | — | 2 | 37 | — | —
100/30 | — | 10 | 1 | — | 42 | 31 | — | —
100/31 | 30 | 14 | 1 | — | 65 | 32 | — | —
100/32 | 41 | 1 | 1 | — | 97 | 28 | — | —
100/33 | — | — | 1 | — | 57 | 28 | — | —
100/35 | 82 | 22 | 1 | — | 9 | 35 | — | —
100/36 | 10 | 7 | 1 | — | 60 | 30 | — | —
100/37 | 20 | 9 | 1 | — | 20 | 31 | — | —
100/38 | — | — | 1 | — | 57 | 28 | — | —
100/39 | 5 | 6 | 1 | — | 30 | 30 | — | —
100/40 | — | — | 1 | — | 57 | 28 | — | —
100/41 | 5 | 6 | 1 | — | 30 | 30 | — | —
100/42 | 50 | 1 | 1 | — | — | 29 | — | —
100/45 | 15 | 26 | 1 | — | 4 | 36 | — | —
100/46 | 82 | 5 | 1 | — | 23 | 30 | — | —
100/47 | 82 | 5 | 1 | — | 23 | 30 | — | —
100/52 | 5 | 13 | 1 | — | 30 | 32 | — | —
100/49 | 50 | 29 | 1 | — | — | 37 | — | —
100/14 | — | 70 | — | — | — | 20 | — | —
100/2 | — | — | 15 | — | 57 | 28 | 4 | —
4- An area of 13/41/7/992 donums, which represents part of the area of the aforementioned shares amounting to 819 shares
out of the total consideration of 1260 shares in plot number 1 of district number 35/Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is
20/4036/- donums, classified as Miri land delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow, and the committee has partitioned it into a
separate plot with the area belonging to the rest of the partners and gave it the number 4/1 with an area of 10/14/16/2255 donums, and its
ownership became, considering it 563911410 shares, of which 248074113 shares belong to the confessor Muhammad Kadhim Faydhi, and to Bayhan Al-Sayyid Qasim
Al-Rushdi 209310597 shares, and to Maryam Al-Sayyid Ahmad 672800000 shares, and to Najiba Abdul-Hussein Al-Souz
28033300 shares, and to Khadija Abdul-Jalil Al-Souz 11213400 shares.
B - The confessor Bayhan Al-Sayyid Qasim Al-Rushdi:
1 - An area of 37/21/157 donums, which represents the area of her common shares amounting to 273 shares out of a total of
1260 shares in plot number 28 of district number 36/Al-Mahmoudiya and Al-Mustajad, whose general area is
14/728/- donums, classified as Miri land delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow, and the committee has partitioned it with the area belonging
to the rest of the partners into a separate plot given the number 2/28 with an area of 56/5/8/708 donums, and its ownership considering
1225 shares distributed as follows: 273 shares for the confessor Bayhan Al-Sayyid Qasim Al-Rushdi, 819 shares for the partner Anoud bint
Rokan, 84 shares for the partner Maryam bint Al-Sayyid Ahmad Kadhim Al-Rushdi, 35 shares for the partner Najiba Abdul-Hussein Al-Souz, and
14 shares for the partner Khadija bint Abdul-Jalil Al-Souz.
2 - Her common shares amounting to 5760 shares out of a total of 23040 shares, which is equivalent to 50/37/8/3 donums of
plot number 100 of district number 7/ Bab Al-Salalma, whose general area is 50/8/13 donums, classified as Miri land
delegated by Tapu, and its description is an orchard irrigated by flow.
Page 147
- 6 -
donums, and the committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 4/1 and with an area of
10/14/6/2255 donums, and its ownership became, considering 563911410 shares of it, to the declarant Beehan Al-Sayyid Qasim
Al-Rushdi 209310597 shares, and to the declarant Muhammad Kadhim Faydhi Al-Rushdi 248074113 shares, and to Maryam daughter of Sayyid Ahmad
6728000 shares, and to Najia daughter of Abdul Hussein Al-Souz 28033300 shares, and to Khadija daughter of Abdul Jalil 11213400
shares, and its boundaries and abstract rights are as indicated on the map.
C - The declarant Sayyid Ali Sayyid Ahmad Wafi Al-Rushdi.
1 - An area of -/200/- donums, which represents part of the area of his common shares amounting to 3 shares out of
16 shares in plot number 1 of district number 60/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is -/2907/- donums.
The committee partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot and gave it the number 2/1 with an area of -/650/-
donums, of which -/200/- donums go to the declarant Sayyid Ali Sayyid Ahmad Wafi Al-Rushdi, and to the declarant Sajida Sayyid Ahmad Wafi
Al-Rushdi -/350/- donums, and to the declarant Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz -/100/- donums, and its category is Miri granted by Lazma,
and its descriptions are agricultural irrigated by flow, and its boundaries and abstract rights are as indicated on the map.
2 - An area of 15/13/9/1 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 2358 shares out of
23040 shares in plot number 100 of district number 7/Bab Al-Salalma, whose total area is 50/8/13
donums, and its category is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its descriptions are an orchard irrigated by flow.
3 - An area of -/19/45/- donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 819 shares out of 1260
shares in plot number 2 of district number 35/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is -/10/70/- donums,
and its category is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its descriptions are agricultural irrigated by flow.
4 - An area of 82/24/29 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares in plot number 27 of district 36/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 50/21/341 donums.
The committee partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 2/27 and with an area of 02/18/193
donums, and its ownership, considering 8773632 shares distributed among the partners whose names are shown in paragraph (7) referred to in
the first section above, except for the area of the shares of the declarants Muhammad Kadhim Faydhi and Beehan, children of Sayyid Qasim Al-Rushdi, which became
among the seized property, and its category is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its descriptions are agricultural irrigated by flow, and its boundaries and abstract rights
are as indicated on the map.
5 - An area of 84/19/29 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares of plot number 24, district 36/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 75/14/339 donums.
The committee partitioned it along with the area set aside for the partners into an independent plot given the number 2/24 and with an area of 87/10/192
donums, and its ownership is as stated in plot 2/27 referred to above, and its category is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its descriptions are agricultural
irrigated by flow, and its rights and boundaries are as indicated on the map.
6 - An area of 70/14/40 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of 15482880
shares in plot number 20 of district number 69/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 75/15/462 donums.
The committee partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 2/20 and with an area of 91/03/293
donums, and its ownership is as stated in the fourth paragraph mentioned above, and its descriptions are agricultural irrigated by flow, and its boundaries are as indicated
on the map.
7 - An area of 14/15/1 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares of plot number 24 of district number 69/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 50/07/18 donums.
The committee partitioned this area along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 2/24 and with an area of
26/09/10 donums, and its ownership, category, and descriptions are as stated in the fourth paragraph above, and its boundaries and abstract rights are as
indicated on the map.
8 - An area of -/86/8/- donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares of plot number 1 of district number 68/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is -/01/4/- donums,
and its category is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its descriptions are agricultural irrigated by flow.
9 - An area of 09/21/4 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares of plot number 12 of district 68/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 25/05/55 donums.
The committee partitioned it along with the area set aside with the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 2/12 and with an area of
15/07/31 donums, and its ownership, category, descriptions, and irrigation method are as stated in the fourth paragraph mentioned above, and its boundaries
and rights are as indicated on the map.
10 - An area of 62/03/1 donums, which represents the area of his common shares amounting to 1358370 shares out of
15482880 shares of plot number 36 of district 68/Al-Hussainiya, whose total area is 25/01/13 donums,
and its category and descriptions are as stated in the fourth paragraph above.
Page 148
- 9 -
The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned the number 75/2, with an area of 29/5/87
donums. Its classification, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the twelfth paragraph of the presentation of the setting aside for the declarant Ali Al-Rushdi.
8 - An area of 1/01/50 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 36 of district number 68/Al-Husayniyah, with a total area of -/13/1/25 donums.
Its classification is Miri (state land) delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow.
9 - An area of 11/06/45 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 54 of district number 68/Al-Husayniyah, with a total area of -/138/14
donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned the number 54/2, with an area of
78/13/96 donums. Its classification, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the eleventh paragraph of the presentation of the setting aside for the declarant Ali Al-Rushdi.
10 - An area of -/08/21 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 1 of district number 68/Al-Husayniyah, with a total area of -/4/01 donums.
Its classification is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow.
11 - An area of 7/84 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 2 of district number 68/Al-Husayniyah, with a total area of 3/21/50 donums.
Its classification is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow.
12 - An area of 14-12-4 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 12 of district 68/Al-Husayniyah, with a total area of 55/5/25 donums.
The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned the number 12/2, with an area of 31/07/15
donums. Its classification, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the ninth paragraph of the presentation of the setting aside for the declarant Ali Al-Rushdi.
13 - An area of 5/58/18/- donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 288 shares out of 3,024
shares of plot number 100/2 and plot number 100/1 of district number 12/Bab Al-Khan, whose endowment (waqf) has been liquidated
as we previously indicated.
Plot Number | Total Area | Share of the declarant from it
| Dsm | Meter | Oluck | Donum | Dsm | Meter | Oluck | Donum
100 / 3 | 9 | 6 | 1 | - | 10 | 10 | - | -
100 / 4 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 5 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 6 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 7 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 8 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 9 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 10 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 11 | 94 | 6 | 1 | - | 61 | 9 | - | -
100 / 15 | - | - | 1 | - | - | 10 | - | -
100 / 16 | 94 | 30 | 1 | - | 47 | 12 | - | -
100 / 17 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 18 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 19 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 20 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 21 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 22 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 23 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
100 / 25 | 4 | 6 | 1 | - | 10 | 10 | - | -
100 / 26 | 50 | 2 | 1 | - | 76 | 9 | - | -
100 / 27 | 25 | 10 | 1 | - | 50 | 10 | - | -
100 / 28 | 60 | 35 | 1 | - | 91 | 12 | - | -
100 / 29 | 60 | 29 | 1 | - | 34 | 12 | - | -
100 / 30 | - | 10 | 1 | - | 47 | 10 | - | -
100 / 31 | 30 | 14 | 1 | - | 88 | 10 | - | -
100 / 32 | 41 | 1 | 1 | - | 66 | 9 | - | -
100 / 33 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
- 8 -
Plot Number | General Area | Share of the Declarant
| Decim | Meter | Uluck | Donum | Decim | Meter | Uluck | Donum
40/100 | – | – | 1 | – | 64 | 19 | – | –
41/100 | 50 | 6 | 1 | – | 83 | 20 | – | –
43/100 | 50 | 9 | 1 | – | 93 | 19 | – | –
45/100 | 15 | 26 | 1 | – | 77 | 24 | – | –
46/100 | 82 | 5 | 1 | – | 78 | 20 | – | –
47/100 | 82 | 5 | 1 | – | 78 | 20 | – | –
52/100 | 5 | 13 | 1 | – | 20 | 22 | – | –
49/100 | 50 | 29 | 1 | – | 43 | 25 | – | –
14/100 | – | 7 | 1 | – | 75 | 13 | – | –
2/100 | – | 15 | – | – | 64 | 94 | 2 | –
The total area of the shares transferred to him from his deceased wife, Bikam Al-Rushdi, as stated in the aforementioned legal distribution in paragraph 2 of the first section above, amounts to 0/0/75/25 donums.
14 – An area of 34/26/10/627 donums, representing part of his common shares amounting to 2457 shares out of 10080 shares in plot number 7 of district 35 – Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 19/3956/0/0 donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into a plot numbered 2/7 with an area of 2310/80/54/16 donums, of which 34/26/10/627 donums belong to the declarant Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi, 26/64/11/532 donums to the declarant Sajida, 20/69/3/733 donums to the declarant Haybat, 10/24/43/0/0 donums to the partner Khadija bint Abdul Jalil Al-Souz, 75/22/109/0/0 donums to the partner Najiba bint Abdul Hussein Al-Souz, and 60/19/263/0/0 donums to the partner Maryam bint Al-Sayyid Ahmad Al-Sayyid Kadhim. Its classification is Miri Tapu-authorized, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow, with its boundaries and abstract rights as indicated on the map.
D – The declarant Sajida bint Al-Sayyid Ahmad Wafi Al-Rushdi.
1 – An area of 0/350/0/0 donums, representing part of her common shares amounting to 3 shares out of 16 shares in plot number 1 of district number 60/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 0/2907/0/0 donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for each of the declarants Ali Al-Rushdi and Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz into an independent plot numbered 2/1 with an area of 0/650/0/0 donums, of which 0/100/0/0 donums belong to Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi, 0/350/0/0 donums to the declarant Sajida Al-Rushdi, and 0/200/0/0 donums to the declarant Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz. Its classification is Miri granted by Lazma, and its description is agricultural land irrigated by flow, with its boundaries and abstract rights as indicated on the map.
2 – An area of 56/26/6/1 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 2160 shares out of 23040 shares in plot number 100 of district number 7/ Bab Al-Salala, whose general area is 50/08/13 donums. Its classification is Miri Tapu-authorized, and its description is an orchard irrigated by flow.
3 – An area of 79/14/27 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of 15,482,880 shares in plot number 24 of district number 36/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 75/14/339 donums. The committee has partitioned it for the rest of the partners into an independent plot numbered 2/24 with an area of 87/10/192 donums. Its classification, description, and ownership are as stated in the fifth paragraph regarding the setting aside for the declarant Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi.
4 – An area of 27-19-40 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of 15,482,880 shares in plot number 27 of district number 36/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 50/21/341 donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot numbered 2/27 with an area of 2/18/193 donums. Its classification, description, and ownership are as stated in the fourth paragraph regarding the setting aside for the declarant Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi.
5 – An area of 72/14/37 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of 15,482,880 shares in plot number 20 of district number 69/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 462/75/15 donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot numbered 2/20 with an area of 91/3/292 donums. Its classification, description, and ownership are as stated in the sixth paragraph regarding the setting aside for the declarant Mr. Ali Al-Rushdi.
6 – An area of 17/12/1 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of 15,482,880 shares in plot number 24 of district number 69/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 50/07/18 donums. The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot numbered 2/24 with an area of 26/09/10 donums. Its classification, description, and ownership are as stated in the seventh paragraph regarding the setting aside for the declarant Ali Al-Rushdi.
7 – An area of 79/04/4 donums, representing her common shares amounting to 1,257,984 shares out of 15,482,880 shares in plot number 75 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, whose general area is 75/14/51 donums.
Page 149
- 11 -
The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned number 24/2, with an area of
26/9/10 dunams. Its classification, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the seventh paragraph of the report on setting aside the headquarters for Ali Al-Rushdi.
5 - An area of 55/08/- dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 1 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 01/4/- dunams.
Its classification is Miri (state-owned) delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural irrigated by flow.
6 - An area of 17/08/- dunams, representing the area of his common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 2 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 50/21/3 dunams.
Its classification is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its description is agricultural irrigated by flow.
7 - An area of 93/16/4 dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 12 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 25/5/55 dunams.
The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned number 12/2, with an area of
15/7/31 dunams. Its ownership, classification, and descriptions are as stated in the ninth paragraph of the report on setting aside the headquarters for Ali Al-Rushdi.
8 - An area of 64/02/1 dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 36 of district number 68 Al-Hussainiya. Its classification is Miri delegated by Tapu, and its description is
agricultural irrigated by flow.
9 - An area of 47/18/11 dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 54 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 14/138/- dunams.
The committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned number 54/2, with an area of 96/12/78
dunams. Its ownership, classification, and descriptions are as stated in the eleventh paragraph of the report on setting aside the headquarters for Ali Al-Rushdi.
10 - An area of 27/9/4 dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1,311,744 shares out of
15,482,880 shares in plot number 75 of district number 68/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 75/14/51
dunams. The committee has partitioned it from the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot assigned number 75/2, with an area of
87/5/29 dunams. Its classification, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the twelfth paragraph of the report on setting aside the headquarters for Ali Al-Rushdi.
11 - An area of 38/84/20 - dunams, representing her common shares amounting to 1,440 shares out of 23,040
shares in plot number 100 of district number 7/ Bab Al-Salala, with a total area of 50/8/13 dunams. Its classification is
Miri delegated by Tapu, and its description is an orchard irrigated by flow.
12 - An area of 100/-/- dunams, representing part of the area of his common shares amounting to two shares out of
16 shares in plot number 1 of district number 60/ Al-Hussainiya, with a total area of 2917/-/- dunams. The
committee has partitioned it along with the area set aside for some of the confessors into an independent plot assigned number 1/2, with an area of 650/-/-
dunams, of which 100/-/- dunams belong to the aforementioned female confessor, 200/-/- dunams to the confessor Ali Al-Rushdi, and to the female confessor
Sajida Al-Rushdi 350/-/- dunams. Its classification is Miri granted by Lazma, and its description is agricultural irrigated by flow, its boundaries and abstract rights
are as indicated on the map.
13 - An area of 42/46/24/44 dunams, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 5 shares out of
180 shares in the plots listed below.
- 10 -
Plot Number | General Area | Share of the Confirmer
| Decimeter | Meter | Uluk | Donum | Decimeter | Meter | Uluk | Donum
35 / 100 | 82 | 22 | 1 | - | 69 | 11 | - | -
36 / 100 | 10 | 7 | 1 | - | 20 | 10 | - | -
37 / 100 | 20 | 9 | 1 | - | 40 | 10 | - | -
38 / 100 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
39 / 100 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 | - | -
40 / 100 | - | - | 1 | - | 52 | 9 | - | -
41 / 100 | 5 | 6 | 1 | - | 10 | 10 | - | -
42 / 100 | 50 | 1 | 1 | - | 66 | 9 | - | -
45 / 100 | 15 | 26 | 1 | - | 1 | 12 | - | -
46 / 100 | 82 | 5 | 1 | - | 7 | 10 | - | -
47 / 100 | 82 | 5 | 1 | - | 8 | 10 | - | -
52 / 100 | 5 | 13 | 1 | - | 76 | 10 | - | -
49 / 100 | 50 | 29 | 1 | - | 33 | 12 | - | -
14 / 100 | - | 70 | - | - | 66 | 6 | - | -
2 / 100 | 15 | - | 1 | - | 85 | 42 | 1 | -
14 - An area of 532/11/14/26 donums, representing part of the area of her common shares amounting to 2457 shares
out of a total of 10080 shares in plot number 7 of district number 35 / Al-Husayniyah, whose general area is - / 19 / 3956
donums. The committee has partitioned it from the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 7/2 with an area of 54/80 /
16 / 23/20 donums, and its ownership is as stated in paragraph fourteen of the presentation of setting aside for the confirmer Ali Al-Rushdi.
E - The confirmer Haybat Abdul Hussein Al-Souz
1 - An area of 28/24/7 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1311744 shares out of
15482880 shares in plot number 27 of district number 36 / Al-Husayniyah, whose general area is 50 - 21 - 341
donums. The committee has partitioned it with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 27/2 with an area of
193/18/02 donums, and its category, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the fourth paragraph of the presentation of setting aside for the confirmer Ali Al-Rushdi.
2 - An area of 28/19/27 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1311744 shares out of
15482880 shares in plot number 34 of district number 36 / Al-Husayniyah, whose general area is 339/14/75
donums. The committee has partitioned it with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 34/2 with an area of
193/10/87 donums, and its category, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the fifth paragraph of the presentation of setting aside for the confirmer Ali Al-Rushdi.
3 - An area of 39/4/87 donums, representing the area of her common shares amounting to 1311744 shares out of
15482880 shares in plot number 20 of district number 69 / Al-Husayniyah, whose general area is 462/15/75
donums. The committee has partitioned it with the area set aside for the rest of the partners into an independent plot given the number 20/2 with an area of
292/3/91 donums, and its category, descriptions, and ownership are as stated in the sixth paragraph of the presentation of setting aside for the confirmer Ali Al-Rushdi.
4 - An area of 1/13/76 donums, which is the area of her common shares amounting to 1311744 shares out of
15482880 shares in plot number 24 of district number 69 / Al-Husayniyah, whose general area is 50 - 07 - 18 donums
Page 150
- 13 -
Plot Number | District | General Area | Share of the Headquarters
| | Meter | Uluk | Donum | Dasim | Meter | Uluk | Donum
55 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 6 | 4 | 52 | 96 | 2 | —
56 Orchard | 70 | — | 15 | 2 | 55 | 80 | 1 | —
57 Orchard | 70 | — | 19 | 7 | 88 | 38 | 5 | —
58 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 1 | 4 | 63 | 82 | 2 | —
59 Orchard | 70 | — | 11 | 6 | 32 | 47 | 4 | —
60 Orchard | 70 | — | 7 | 8 | — | 75 | 5 | —
61 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 4 | 1 | 94 | 81 | — | —
62 Orchard | 70 | 50 | — | 1 | 83 | 70 | — | —
63 Orchard | 70 | — | 4 | 1 | 55 | 80 | — | —
65 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 1 | 5 | 69 | 50 | 3 | —
66 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 21 | 4 | 80 | 36 | 3 | —
67 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 2 | 3 | 97 | 15 | 2 | —
68 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 2 | 1 | 69 | 75 | — | —
69 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 18 | 2 | 52 | 21 | — | —
70 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 34 | 3 | —
71 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 21 | 4 | 19 | 38 | 3 | —
72 Orchard | 70 | — | 18 | 3 | 33 | 58 | 2 | —
73 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 3 | 4 | 50 | 87 | 2 | —
74 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 4 | 2 | 69 | 50 | — | —
75 Orchard | 70 | — | 17 | 10 | 66 | 41 | 7 | —
76 Orchard | 70 | — | 8 | 3 | 11 | 61 | 1 | —
77 Orchard | 70 | — | 11 | 5 | 77 | 77 | 3 | —
78 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 13 | 1 | 94 | 6 | — | —
79 Orchard | 70 | — | 1 | 6 | 44 | 19 | 4 | —
80 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 18 | 2 | 97 | 90 | 1 | —
81 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 11 | 97 | 2 | —
82 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 9 | 10 | 13 | 20 | 7 | —
83 Orchard | 70 | — | 16 | 4 | 22 | 22 | 3 | —
84 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 16 | 4 | 61 | 23 | 3 | —
85 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 21 | 6 | 69 | 75 | 4 | —
86 Orchard | 70 | 75 | — | 7 | 8 | 2 | 5 | —
87 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 10 | 6 | 83 | 45 | 4 | —
88 Orchard | 70 | — | 9 | 3 | 33 | 33 | 2 | —
89 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 15 | 4 | 52 | 21 | 3 | —
90 Orchard | 70 | — | 7 | 3 | 77 | 27 | 2 | —
91 Orchard | 70 | — | 20 | 3 | 88 | 63 | 2 | —
92 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 16 | 2 | 72 | 84 | 1 | —
93 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 9 | 16 | 80 | 36 | 11 | —
94 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 9 | 13 | 94 | 6 | 9 | —
95 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 19 | 3 | 50 | 62 | 2 | —
96 Orchard | 70 | 75 | — | 4 | 86 | 79 | 4 | —
97 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 18 | 5 | 61 | 98 | 3 | —
98 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 7 | 1 | 58 | 89 | — | —
99 Orchard | 70 | 25 | 18 | 1 | 13 | 20 | 1 | —
100 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 11 | 9 | 63 | 57 | 6 | —
101 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 5 | 7 | 38 | 1 | — | —
102 Elevated | 70 | — | 14 | — | 33 | 8 | — | —
103 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 7 | 12 | 16 | 54 | 8 | —
104 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 6 | 1 | 19 | 88 | — | —
105 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 3 | 2 | 61 | 48 | 1 | —
106 Orchard | 70 | 50 | 2 | 1 | 38 | 76 | — | —
107 Orchard | 70 | 75 | 18 | — | 8 | 52 | — | —
- 12 -
Plot Number | District | General Area (Meter / Olak / Donum / Desem) | Share of the Headquarters (Meter / Olak / Donum)
1 | Orchard | 70 | 75 | 3 | 8 | 97 | 65 | 5 | —
2 | = | 70 | 50 | 15 | — | 5 | 43 | — | —
3 | = | 70 | 75 | 6 | — | 19 | 88 | — | —
4 | = | 70 | 25 | 29 | 2 | 36 | 92 | — | —
5 | = | 70 | 75 | 10 | 2 | 75 | 68 | — | —
6 | = | 70 | 50 | 14 | 3 | 61 | 48 | 2 | —
7 | = | 70 | 75 | 2 | 2 | 52 | 46 | 1 | —
8 | = | 70 | — | 11 | — | 55 | 30 | — | —
9 | = | 70 | 25 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 70 | 3 | —
10 | = | 70 | 50 | — | — | 61 | 48 | 3 | —
11 | = | 70 | 50 | 13 | 2 | 38 | 76 | 1 | —
12 | = | 70 | 25 | 15 | 3 | 69 | 50 | 2 | —
13 | = | 70 | 75 | — | 2 | 97 | 40 | — | —
14 | = | 70 | 75 | 11 | — | 63 | 32 | — | —
15 | = | 70 | 75 | 1 | 23 | 63 | 32 | 15 | —
16 | = | 70 | 25 | 21 | — | 47 | 28 | — | —
17 | = | 70 | 75 | 3 | 1 | 86 | 79 | — | —
18 | = | 70 | 25 | 11 | 1 | 69 | — | 1 | —
19 | = | 70 | 50 | 9 | 2 | 37 | 65 | — | —
20 | = | 70 | 75 | 9 | 3 | 41 | 35 | 2 | —
21 | Elevated | 70 | — | 19 | 4 | 55 | 30 | 3 | —
22 | Orchard | — | — | 3 | 2 | 22 | 47 | 1 | —
23 | = | — | 25 | 19 | — | 47 | 53 | — | —
24 | = | — | 75 | 15 | — | 75 | 43 | — | —
25 | = | — | 50 | 13 | — | 50 | 37 | — | —
26 | = | — | 50 | 11 | — | 94 | 31 | — | —
27 | = | — | — | 10 | — | 77 | 27 | — | —
28 | = | — | 25 | 21 | — | 2 | 59 | — | —
29 | = | — | 25 | 20 | — | 25 | 56 | — | —
30 | = | — | — | 5 | 2 | 77 | 52 | — | —
31 | = | — | 50 | 7 | 1 | 28 | 90 | — | —
32 | = | — | — | 21 | — | 77 | 27 | — | —
33 | = | — | 25 | 10 | 7 | 58 | 14 | 5 | —
34 | = | — | — | 23 | 1 | 33 | 33 | — | —
35 | = | — | — | 21 | — | 33 | 58 | — | —
36 | = | — | 75 | 19 | — | 86 | 54 | — | —
37 | = | — | — | 20 | — | 55 | 55 | — | —
38 | = | — | 25 | 22 | — | 80 | 61 | — | —
39 | = | — | 75 | 10 | 1 | 30 | 99 | — | —
40 | = | — | 75 | 23 | — | 97 | 65 | — | —
41 | = | — | 75 | 19 | 1 | 30 | 24 | 1 | —
42 | = | — | 25 | 22 | — | 80 | 61 | — | —
43 | = | — | 75 | 19 | 3 | 19 | 63 | 2 | —
44 | = | — | — | 13 | 18 | 11 | 86 | 12 | —
45 | = | — | 50 | 14 | — | 27 | 40 | — | —
46 | = | — | 25 | 13 | 2 | 69 | 75 | 1 | —
47 | = | — | — | 3 | 3 | 66 | 16 | 2 | —
48 | = | — | 25 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 70 | 4 | —
49 | = | — | 50 | 17 | — | 5 | 18 | — | —
50 | = | — | 25 | 9 | 1 | 91 | 72 | 3 | —
51 | = | — | 75 | 9 | 4 | 86 | 4 | 3 | —
52 | = | — | 75 | 24 | 3 | 52 | 46 | 3 | —
53 | = | — | 75 | 14 | 16 | 8 | 52 | 11 | —