宗教基金土地与继承土地之间的争议(第 174/Pdt.G/ 2017/MS.Bna 号案件中法官作为证据的推定分析)

Muhammad Husnul, Siti Jum’ah
{"title":"宗教基金土地与继承土地之间的争议(第 174/Pdt.G/ 2017/MS.Bna 号案件中法官作为证据的推定分析)","authors":"Muhammad Husnul, Siti Jum’ah","doi":"10.59698/quru.v2i1.183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This research discusses the invalidity of the Deed of Replacement of Waqf Pledge Deed on land belonging to the heir who rejected APIAW whose final implication at the appeal stage was that the deed was null and void because contrary to the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the judge's considerations in the form of the judge's guess. The issue of concern is whether the judge's opinion as one of the judge's considerations at the cassation stage can be used as evidence in this case. The research method used is qualitative with a normative juridical approach. The results of the research show that judges can use their assumptions as evidence in their considerations when deciding cases with the assumption that the evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant has not been able to convince the judge. However, in the end, based on the judge's estimates, it could be concluded that APAIW and the Certificate of Ownership (SHM) had no legal force (not inkracht).","PeriodicalId":517990,"journal":{"name":"QURU’: Journal of Family Law and Culture","volume":" 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dispute Between Waqf Land Vs. Inherited Land (Analysis of the Judge's Presumption as Evidence in Case No. 174/Pdt.G/ 2017/MS.Bna)\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Husnul, Siti Jum’ah\",\"doi\":\"10.59698/quru.v2i1.183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This research discusses the invalidity of the Deed of Replacement of Waqf Pledge Deed on land belonging to the heir who rejected APIAW whose final implication at the appeal stage was that the deed was null and void because contrary to the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the judge's considerations in the form of the judge's guess. The issue of concern is whether the judge's opinion as one of the judge's considerations at the cassation stage can be used as evidence in this case. The research method used is qualitative with a normative juridical approach. The results of the research show that judges can use their assumptions as evidence in their considerations when deciding cases with the assumption that the evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant has not been able to convince the judge. However, in the end, based on the judge's estimates, it could be concluded that APAIW and the Certificate of Ownership (SHM) had no legal force (not inkracht).\",\"PeriodicalId\":517990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"QURU’: Journal of Family Law and Culture\",\"volume\":\" 22\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"QURU’: Journal of Family Law and Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.59698/quru.v2i1.183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"QURU’: Journal of Family Law and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59698/quru.v2i1.183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究讨论的是属于拒绝 APIAW 的继承人的土地上的宗教基金质押契约替换契约的无效性,APIAW 在上诉阶段的最终含义是该契约无效,因为它与原告提交的证据和法官以法官猜测的形式提出的考虑因素相悖。值得关注的问题是,作为法官在撤销原判阶段的考虑因素之一,法官的意见能否作为本案的证据。所采用的研究方法是规范法学的定性方法。研究结果表明,法官在裁决案件时,在假设原告和被告提供的证据无法说服法官的情况下,可以将其假设作为考虑因素中的证据。然而,根据法官的估计,最终可以得出结论,APAIW 和所有权证书(SHM)不具有法律效力(不是 inkracht)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dispute Between Waqf Land Vs. Inherited Land (Analysis of the Judge's Presumption as Evidence in Case No. 174/Pdt.G/ 2017/MS.Bna)
This research discusses the invalidity of the Deed of Replacement of Waqf Pledge Deed on land belonging to the heir who rejected APIAW whose final implication at the appeal stage was that the deed was null and void because contrary to the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the judge's considerations in the form of the judge's guess. The issue of concern is whether the judge's opinion as one of the judge's considerations at the cassation stage can be used as evidence in this case. The research method used is qualitative with a normative juridical approach. The results of the research show that judges can use their assumptions as evidence in their considerations when deciding cases with the assumption that the evidence presented by the plaintiff and defendant has not been able to convince the judge. However, in the end, based on the judge's estimates, it could be concluded that APAIW and the Certificate of Ownership (SHM) had no legal force (not inkracht).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信