PERALIHAN TANAH NGINDUNG YANG CACAT HUKUM DI PENGADILAN NEGERI YOGYAKARTA (Studi Kasus Putusan Perkara Nomor: 31/Pdt.G/2009/PN.YK)
The study aimed at identifying what became the basic rule so that the case of defective-in law transition of the Ngindung ground appeared and the effect from the cancelation of the transition. This is a normative juridical study which emphasized on the discussion of the current norm. In this study a...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
[Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada
2012
|
| Subjects: |
| Summary: | The study aimed at identifying what became the basic rule so that the case of
defective-in law transition of the Ngindung ground appeared and the effect from the
cancelation of the transition.
This is a normative juridical study which emphasized on the discussion of the
current norm. In this study a literature review was done to get theories, views relevant
with the case, to make this study complete a field study was conducted to find the
data directly based on the reality
The result of the study indicated that the basic rule which made the case of the
defective-in law transition appear was because Mrs. Kariya Pawira gave a house
located in the ground of Raden Mas Jaga Patra to her two nephews, named Mr
Rubani (Defendant I) and Yadika (Defendant II) and some of the house was rent by
Mrs. Rubani (Defendant I) and Yadika (Defendant II) to Mrs. Muryani (Defendant
III) without the consent of the landowner. The legal consequence due to the
cancellation of the transition was that any transition that appeared should be
considered invalid and must be canceled. Mrs. Rubani (Defendant I) and Yadika
(Defendant II) must dismantle the house and then return the land to Raden Mas Jaga
Patra�s heirs. Mrs. Muryani had to go out without getting compensation for the
money she had paid because initially Mrs. Muryani (Defendant III) didn�t have any
relation at all with the accuser. But have directly relation to Mrs. Rubani (Defendant
I) and Yadika (Defendant II) so Mrs. Rubani (Defendant I) and Yadika (Defendant II)
should bear on all the lose experienced by Mrs. Muryani. |
|---|