CLJSYA 2011 1 85 Puukm1

[2011] 1 CLJ (Sya) Hanipah Mohd Nor v.
Baharom Aman 85
A HANIPAH MOHD NOR
v.
BAHAROM AMAN
B SYARIAH HIGH COURT, MELAKA
MAHAMMAD IBRAHIM J
[CIVIL CASE NO: 04100-017-0008-2003]
12 MAY 2009
C MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY: Distribution - House and land -

Felda Land Settlement Scheme - Land registered under husband’s name -
Whether constituted matrimonial property - Respective contributions of
parties - Wife equally responsible in developing land - Whether entitled to
half-share thereof - Administration of Islamic Law (State of Malacca)
D Enactment 2002 s. 3 - Islamic Family Law (State of Malacca)
Enactment 2002 s. 122
The plaintiff and the defendant were settlers in a Felda land

scheme at Bukit Senggeh, Jasin, Melaka (‘FELDA’). Upon joining
the land scheme in 1974, ie, a year after their marriage in 1973,
E
they were given 10.4 acres of land (‘Lot 3082’) to be planted
with rubber (later oil palm), and another 1123 sq metres on which
to build their house (‘Lot 3989’). Both plots of land, however,
were registered in the name of the defendant. The parties were
divorced in the year 2003, and following that, the plaintiff applied
F
for an order that Lot 3082 and Lot 3989 be equally divided
between them as harta sepencarian. It was the stand of the
plaintiff, who was also teaching at a Kindergarten in the scheme,
that she had contributed much in terms of helping to develop and
taking care of Lot 3082, and was therefore entitled to a half-share
G
in the property. The defendant did not deny the plaintiff's
contribution towards Lot 3082 aforesaid, and indeed, at the end
of the trial, had conceded to the plaintiff’s claim on Lot 3082.
The facts in any case showed that Lot 3082 had at one time
been leased by the defendant to a contractor for RM5400 per
H
year, that FELDA management for some time had been paying the
defendant subsistence allowance of 750 a month, and that, during
the tenure of their marriage, the plaintiff had purchased for herself
a house at JA 2627, Rumah Awam Pondok Batang, Asahan,
Melaka (‘house JA 2627’). That being so, the plaintiff had also
I
staked a half-share claim against the lease amount and the
subsistence allowance aforesaid, while the defendant
counterclaimed for a two-thirds share in house JA 2627.
86 Syariah Reports [2011] 1 CLJ (Sya)
Held (allowing plaintiff’s claim partly; disallowing A

defendant’s counterclaim):
(1) The plaintiff and the defendant were both entitled to claim
Lot 3082 and Lot 3989 as their harta sepencarian. They had
collectively acquired property after joining the FELDA Land B
Scheme. (paras 6 & 11)
(2) The plaintiff had not only made efforts for the parties to be
accepted as settlers in the FELDA scheme but had toiled Lot
3082 and taken care of Lot 3989. The evidence of the plaintiff
C
and her witnesses showed that the plaintiff had worked on Lot
3082 together with her children, and that it was customary of
her to head for Lot 3082 every afternoon after her classes in
the Kindergarten. In any case, since the defendant had agreed
to part with a half-share of Lot 3082 in favour of the plaintiff,
D
the court would make an order in terms thereof. (paras 25,
27 & 53)
(3) Ever since their marriage, Lot 3989 constituted and remained
the parties’ matrimonial home. The house had however since
been renovated at a cost of RM50,000, which sum was E
accumulated from the sales of rubber and oil palm fruits from
Lot 3082. Nonetheless, it is not deniable that part of the cost
was contributed by sums from the plaintiff's salary and
RM4000 from the defendant’s EPF withdrawal. There being
contributions by both sides, Lot 3989 must therefore be F
distributed equally between them. (paras 28, 29 & 31)
(4) House JA 2627 was purchased by the plaintiff for RM28,000.

The facts showed that the plaintiff had herself paid the
deposit of RM10,000 thereof (from her savings and EPF G
money), and had taken a bank loan of RM18,000 to top up
the balance purchase price. She also took full responsibility in
repaying the bank loan. This being the case, the property
belonged to the plaintiff and not a harta sepencarian. It
follows that the defendant’s counterclaim in this respect stands H
dismissed. (paras 34, 35 & 36)
(5) The facts showed that some RM2000 from the RM5400
received by the defendant from the lessee of Lot 3082 was
given by the defendant to the plaintiff. That aside, the balance
I
sum had been spent on other necessities of the family and for
[2011] 1 CLJ (Sya) Hanipah Mohd Nor v. Baharom Aman 87
A the upkeep of Lot 3082. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's

claim hereof is without merit and ought to be dismissed.
(para. 47)
(6) As to the plaintiff's claim for a half-share of the RM750

B monthly subsistence allowance paid by FELDA to the
defendant, the facts showed that the sums had been utilized
to meet the defendant’s normal expenses and obligations such
as to pay water/electricity bills, car installments, maintenance
of their two young daughters etc. The court cannot therefore
C appreciate the necessity of such claim by the plaintiff, and
would hence dismiss it. (para. 49)
Headnotes in Bahasa Malaysia
D
HARTA SEPENCARIAN: Pembahagian - Rumah dan tanah - Skim
Rancangan Tanah Felda - Tanah didaftar atas nama suami - Sama
ada merupakan harta sepencarian - Sumbangan pihak-pihak - Isteri
sama-sama membantu membangunkan tanah - Sama ada berhak kepada
separuh bahagian hartanah - Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam
E
(Negeri Melaka) 2002 s. 3 - Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam (Negeri
Melaka) 2002 s. 122
Plaintif dan defendan adalah peneroka di Rancangan Tanah Felda

Bukit Senggeh, Jasin Melaka (‘FELDA’). Semasa menyertai
rancangan tanah tersebut pada tahun 1974, iaitu setahun setelah
F perkahwinan mereka pada tahun 1973, mereka diberikan 10.4 ekar
tanah (‘Lot 3082’) untuk ditanam dengan getah (kemudian kelapa
sawit), dan sebidang tapak rumah seluas 1123 meter persegi (‘Lot
3989’). Kedua-dua Lot 3082 dan Lot 3989 bagaimanapun
didaftarkan atas nama defendan seorang sahaja. Pada tahun 2003,
G pihak-pihak telah bercerai, dan ekoran itu plaintif menuntut supaya
tanah-tanah Lot 3082 dan Lot 3989 di bahagi dua di antara
mereka sebagai harta sepencarian. Adalah menjadi hujah plaintif,
yang juga bekerja sebagai Guru Tadika di rancangan tanah
tersebut, bahawa beliau banyak membanting tulang untuk
H membangunkan dan menjaga Lot 3082, dan kerana itu amat
berhak kepada sebahagian dari aset berkenaan. Defendan tidak
menolak sumbangan tenaga yang diberikan oleh plaintif terhadap
pembangunan dan penjagaan Lot 3082 khususnya, dan malah,
di akhir perbicaraan, bersetuju untuk memberikan separuh
I bahagian Lot 3082 kepada plaintif. Apapun, fakta juga
menunjukkan bahawa Lot 3082, pada suatu ketika telah dipajakkan A

oleh defendan kepada seorang kontraktor dengan balasan RM5400
setahun, bahawa sejak tahun 2004, pihak FELDA telah membayar
kepada defendan elaun sara hidup sebanyak RM750 sebulan, dan
bahawa, semasa tempoh perkahwinan mereka, plaintif telah
membeli sebuah rumah beralamat di JA 2627, Rumah Awam B
Pondok Batang, Asahan, Melaka (‘rumah JA 2627’). Berikutan itu,
plaintif juga menuntut separuh bahagian wang pajakan dan wang
sara hidup di atas, sementara defendan, yang telah berkahwin lain
dan mempunyai tanggungan sendiri, menuntut balas dua-pertiga
bahagian dari rumah JA 2627. C
Diputuskan (membenarkan sebahagian tuntutan plaintif;

menolak tuntutan balas defendan):
(1) Plaintif dan defendan berhak menuntut Lot 3082 dan Lot
D
3989 sebagai harta sepencarian. Harta-harta berkenaan telah
diperolehi secara bersama setelah pihak-pihak menyertai
Rancangan Tanah FELDA. (perenggan 6 & 11)
(2) Plaintif bukan sahaja telah berusaha supaya pihak-pihak

diterima sebagai peneroka FELDA, tetapi telah menyumbang E
tenaga ke arah membangunkan dan menjaga Lot 3082 dan
Lot 3989. Keterangan plaintif dan saksi-saksi menunjukkan
bahawa plaintif telah mengerjakan Lot 3082 bersama anak-
anak, dan bahawa pada kebiasaan plaintif akan pergi ke Lot
3082 setiap petang selepas habis mengajar di Tadika. Apapun, F
memandangkan defendan sendiri bersetuju untuk memberikan
separuh bahagian Lot 3082 kepada plaintif, maka perintah
sekadarnya dibuat oleh mahkamah. (perenggan 25, 27 & 53)
(3) Lot 3989 adalah merupakan rumah kelamin yang didiami oleh G
pihak-pihak sejak perkahwinan mereka. Rumah tersebut
bagaimanapun telah diubahsuai dan dibina semula dengan kos
sebanyak RM50,000 yang datangnya dari hasil jualan getah
dan kepala sawit dari Lot 3082. Namun, tidak dinafikan
bahawa sebahagian dari pembinaan semula Lot 3989 ini adalah H
bersumber dari wang gaji plaintif serta wang KWSP defendan
sebanyak RM4000. Memandangkan terdapat sumbangan dari
masing-masing pihak, maka Lot 3989 hendaklah dibahagi
separuh seorang. (perenggan 28, 29 & 31)
I
A (4) Rumah JA 2627 adalah dibeli dan dibayar oleh plaintif dengan
harga RM28,000. Fakta menunjukkan bahawa plaintif telah
membayar duit muka sebanyak RM10,000 dari sumbernya
sendiri (wang KWSP dan simpanan gajinya), dan selebihnya
dibayar melalui pinjaman bank sebanyak RM18,000. Pinjaman
B bank tersebut juga dibayar balik oleh plaintif sendiri. Oleh yang
demikian, harta tersebut adalah milik plaintif dan bukannya
harta sepencarian. Sekaligus, tuntutan balas defendan terhadap
rumah JA 2627 adalah ditolak. (perenggan 34, 35 & 36)
C (5) Fakta menunjukkan bahawa sebanyak RM2,000 dari RM5,400

yang diterima defendan hasil dari pemajakan Lot 3082 telah
diserahkan oleh defendan kepada plaintif. Selain itu, wang
selebihnya telah dibelanjakan untuk keperluan keluarga mereka
serta untuk penjagaan kebun sawit mereka Lot 3082. Oleh itu,
D tuntutan plaintif untuk mendapatkan separuh bahgian dari
wang ini tidak bermerit dan harus ditolak. (perenggan 47)
(6) Mengenai tuntutan plaintiff untuk mendapatkan separuh

bahagian kepada elaun sara hidup sebanyak RM750 sebulan
yang dibayar oleh FELFA kepada defendan, fakta menunjukkan
E
bahawa elaun tersebut telah dibelanjakan oleh defendan untuk
membayar tanggungan-tanggungan biasa seperti bil api dan air,
ansuran kereta, nafkah untuk dua dari anak-anak mereka dan
sebagainya. Oleh hal yang demikian, mahkamah tidak nampak
apa perlunya plaintif membuat tuntutan terhadapnya. Tuntutan
F
plaintif terhadap elaun ini adalah ditolak. (perenggan 45)
[Perintah sekadarnya.]
Qur’anic verses referred to:
G al-Baqarah verses 282, 283
Case(s) referred to:

Hawa Embong lwn. Ahmad Muda [1425 H] JH XVII/II (refd)
Maimon Mohamad Zain lwn. Mohammed Azmi Mohd Said [1427] JH
XXI/I (refd)
H Mat Sharie Yaakub lwn. Che Mas Abdullah [1426 h] JH XIX/1 (refd)
Legislation referred to:

Administration of Islamic Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002,
s. 3(b)(x)
Islamic Family Law ( State of Malacca) Enactment 2002, s. 122(1), (2)
I Syariah Court evidence (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002, ss. 72, 73,
74
Other source(s) referred to: A

al-Alamiyah
al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siasah al-Syar’iyyah
Bughyah al-Mustarsyidin
Hasyiah l’aanah al-Taalibin
For the plaintiff - Rosfinah; M/s Rosfinah & Co B

For the defendant - Mohd Adli Ithnin; M/s Adli & Co
Reported and translated by Wan Sharif Wan Ahmad
JUDGMENT
Mahammad Ibrahim J:
D
[1] In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant are seeking for
an order that a certain landed property and a house be declared
as Harta Sepencarian. Additionally, the plaintiff is also claiming that
the house and the property be divided equally as between them,
in consonance with their respective contributions there for. E
[2] The court in this case is empowered to hear, adjudicate and

dispose of the said application. This is evident from a reading of
s. 3(b)(iv) of the Administration of Islamic Law (State of Malacca)
Enactment 2002 which provides:
F
(b) in its civil jurisdiction, hear and determine all actions and
proceedings if all the parties to the actions or proceedings are
Muslims and the actions or proceedings relate to:
(iv) the division of, or claims to, harta sepencarian; G
[3] The court too is empowered with jurisdiction to hear and

dispose of this application for harta sepencarian by virtue of
s. 122, Islamic Family Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002.
According to s. 122(1) thereof:
H
122 (1). The Court shall have power, when permitting the
pronouncement of talaq or when making an order of divorce, to
order the division between the parties of any assets acquired by
them during their marriage by their joint efforts or the sale of any
such assets and the division between the parties of the proceeds
I
of sale.
A [4] It is also evident to the court that the parties are now
entitled to seek for the order of harta sepencarian, since their
divorce had already been effected before the Syariah Subordinate
Court, Melaka.
B [5] By the evidence and the arguments adduced, the court is of

the view that the following questions had thus arisen for
determination, namely:
(i) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant were entitled to claim
for harta sepencarian under the law and the syarak;
C
(ii) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant could provide
convincing proof as to their respective contributions to the
acquirement of the property; and
D (iii) The extent of their respective contributions.
[6] As to the first question aforesaid, the court finds that the
plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to claim the said property
as harta sepencarian. This was based on the words of s. 122(2)
of the Islamic family Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002,
E
which provides:
Section 122(2): In exercising the power conferred by subsection
(1), the Court shall have regard to
(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money,

F
property, or labour towards
(b) any debts owing by either party that were acquiring of the
assets; contracted for their joint benefit;
(c) the need of the minor children of the marriage, if any,

G
' [7] According to the definition outlined in the Islamic Family
Law (State of Malacca) Enactment 2002, harta sepencarian or
matrimonial property means:
H Harta Sepencarian
“harta sepencarian” means property jointly acquired by

husband and wife during the subsistence of marriage in
accordance with the conditions stipulated by Hukum Syarak.
I
[8] The provision of s. 122 of the Islamic Family Law (State of A

Malacca) Enactment 2002, read together with the above definition
of “harta sepencarian” shows that harta sepencarian may exist in
three circumstances, namely:
Firstly: property as acquired by husband and wife jointly and B

through their joint effort during the subsistence of their
marriage as would meet the requirements of hukum syarak;
Secondly: property as acquired by the husband and wife

jointly during the subsistence of their marriage but through the
C
effort of one party to the marriage as would meet the
requirements of hukum syarak;
Thirdly: property that belonged to one party before the

marriage which had substantially been developed during the
subsistence of their marriage in accordance with the D
requirements of hukum syarak by the other party or by them
both.
[9] In the Kitab al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siasah al Sya’iyyah,

published by Dar al Kitab al-Alamiyah, Ibnu Qayyim al Jauziyyah E
at p. 22 said:
¦%Y$£ ¦8£O$ §$I0 § ¤¤¥ % $ L¤ 8 & uJ £
¡IX « %=$ I¥ ¤ ¤$ * %I$£ 2¦-$ %1
%H¤8£ , ª¦Q=$ I¦%, ©M- ´ ¡$ ª'Q$ ¢K § ?¦=Y$£ F
«£ ¢M¦ ª% Û%E$I¥ ¡, %M-1´ %%M-1* ¤ % I

I¥ ', É =£ S&M$MP%< ¡D MD$£ ª% ¡P&L
% L%-1* µ ª¥H% ª%|
G
Which means:
Some from among the Islamic jurists had come to a concurrence
that in matters of claims between the husband and the wife to
jointly acquired matrimonial properties and businesses, such claims
must be accepted upon tender of proof thereof. In reality, in H
claims of this nature, ownership of such property is not based
solely in whose name the property was registered. For registration
of name on the property does not necessarily equate with
ownership. It must be so as, if ownership of property is equated
with the registrant on the property, then a headgear worn by a I
man who had confiscated same from another must be taken as
belonging to him, the confiscation notwithstanding, whereas such
recognition is invalid and stands as a cruelty.
A [10] In the Kitab Bughyah al-Mustarsyidin, 1998 publication by

Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah, Beirut, Lebanon, Sayyid Abdul Rahman
bin Muhammad bin Hussain bin Umar, since deceased in 132 H,
said at p. 197:
B 2Y<£ % <& O¦0 ª¥M ´£ M5& % ¥¶ ¥ £ ¦8£O$ %< %É1D*
- ¡ §T § MY0 ¡4L$£ ´£ %I<¶ ?Y¥ 3¤ £& ªM %¦,
8M´ J* ¡-<%X ´* ?Y$ £& O¦¦1$
Which means:
C
Whenever the property of the husband and the wife had blended
to an extent that the property of each is no longer identifiable -
and a divorce partook them or if death has occurred - then it is
not lawful for either of them (husband or wife) or the heirs to
take control (make use) of any part of the property before the
D same was identified or before a settlement was arrived at as
between them (sulh), except for property held by the owner for
which no identification could possibly be made.
[11] In the present case, the property, according to the plaintiff,

E
was procured through their joint effort after they joined the
FELDA land settlement scheme. According to the plaintiff, being
married spouses and therefore having met the requirement for
admission, they had applied to be and were admitted as FELDA
settlers in a FELDA settlement in the Mukim of Nyalas, Jasin,
F Melaka. According to the plaintiff further, she was the one who
had toiled the land with the assistance of the defendant and the
children, that from the year 1978 to 1997 they had cleared the
land and cultivated same with rubber trees, and that, from the
year 1998, the said FELDA land was replanted with oil palm.
G
[12] The plaintiff further testified that while being a settler she
was also employed as a Kindergarten Teacher. She said that her
routine was to go and tap rubber in the morning and thereafter
would teach at the Kindergarten. She went to the Kindergarten
by the M.O.S bus and would be back by about 12 in the
H
afternoon. And that, upon reaching the house, she would normally
cook for the children. Her routine in the afternoon was to attend
to and work on their land holding together with her children.
She also said that since she had a number of children, her eldest
daughter used to help her tending to them. She would however
I
tend to the family and children’s needs herself when she was back
from the holding. The routine persevered for many years. As for
the defendant, the plaintiff testified that the he was an idler and A
would only work on the land holding intermittently. It was her
further evidence that the children assisted her in tending to the
holding and tapping rubber when they had grown up. She affirmed
that that was the scenario between 1978 to 1997, and that from
1997 to 1998 the rubber trees were felled and replanted with oil B
palm. When asked by counsel during examination-in-chief as to
who was planting the oil palm, the plaintiff said that the defendant
had used the money from the felling and sale of rubber trees to
hire a Chinese to undertake replanting works and that the holding
was returned to the family after planting works were completed. C
And then, from the year 2003 to 2005, the defendant had leased
the holding to a Chinese contractor for a consideration of
RM5000 per year. She further stated that altogether some
RM18,000 were paid by the Chinese contractor to the defendant
for the leasing before FELDA took over the management of the D
holding, but that notwithstanding, not a single cent was given to
her by the defendant.
[13] During cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, the

court found that the plaintiff had left the matrimonial house on E
account of an “Interim Protection Order” (‘IPO’) granted her by
the Magistrate’s Court, Jasin when the defendant had physically
abused her. In any case, the plaintiff’s counsel had tendered Form
1 pertaining to (complaint on) matrimonial violence which was
admitted as exh. P10. F
[14] As to the defendant’s welfare, the plaintiff in her evidence

averred that she had been taking care of the defendant’s daily
needs such as preparing food for him and washing his clothes, and
had taken it upon herself to do all the household chores. She
G
further said that the defendant had a disposition to waste time on
unproductive activities and that she suffered much hardship
because of that. The defendant too had never mended his ways
and that the bad dispositions remained even during his old age
and even up to the time of their divorce. According to the plaintiff
H
further, the defendant did not in any way help her financially and
that in order to help support the cost of raising her many children,
she had to resort to selling cakes. She used the proceeds thereof
for the children’s welfare. As for the family’s subsistence, from the
sales of their rubber, FELDA did grant them food allowance of
I
RM150 per month, after deducting their debt. It was also in
A evidence that she had taken a loan of RM2000 from the

cooperative when her son Shahrul Anuar was admitted to the
University.
Evidence of Plaintiff’s Witnesses

B
Evidence On The Plaintiff’s Employment As Kindergarten Teacher And
Settler
[15] This evidence was supported PW1, namely that the plaintiff
had joined FELDA together with the defendant. PW1 is the
C Assistant Manager of FELDA Bukit Senggeh, whose evidence
must come as expert evidence on the rules and procedures as
imposed by FELDA on the settlers. PW1 too had lent support
to the plaintiff’s testimony, such as affirming P1 and P2 (the said
property) and the fact that the 10-acre land had been leased by
D the defendant to a Chinese contractor. PW1 also noted that
when FELDA regained possession of the holding, FELDA had to
reimburse the Chinese contractor some RM300 a month for a
period of 18 months. The first of such payment was made in May
2006. The payment was deducted from the subsistence allowance
E of RM750 per month that FELDA paid to the defendant. Such
subsistence allowance was first paid to the defendant in May
2004 and continued until 2007. FELDA would thereafter pay the
proceeds from the harvest to the defendant at RM250 per ton.
The defendant was expected to garner some five tons of fruits
F a month thereby giving him an earning of some RM1,250 per
month. At the time PW1 gave this evidence on 30 May 2006,
payment (for the month’s harvest) had been paid to the
defendant. According to PW1 further, the land holding was
originally not susceptible to equal distribution between the parties,
G but that, by virtue of an amendment made to the relevant Act by
Parliament in 2006, an ex-wife is now entitled to a half-share of
the land. This will take place as a matter of course when the
husband agrees to hand over his ex-wife’s share. If the husband
refuses, then the wife must take the matter to the Syariah Court.
H Upon the Syariah Court ruling that the land constitutes harta
sepencarian, the order would be submitted to the relevant District
Land office, who will register the parties as co-proprietors thereof.
[16] PW1 in his evidence had tendered a document, a Land

I Office Circular No. 1/2006, known as “Rules On Claims For Harta
Sepencarian, Maintenance And Rights Of Ex-wife”. This circular
adverts to the process by which an ex-wife gets registered as A

Co-Proprietor/Holder of the land. This means that an ex-wife is
entitled to a share of the FELDA land notwithstanding that it was
the husband’s name that was registered in the document of title.
The circular, marked as P19, further stresses that the name of the
wife should also be inserted in the document of title. B
In the circumstances, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to the
proceeds and a share of FELDA land Lot. 3082, Mukim Nyalas,
Daerah Jasin, Melaka herein.
[17] The plaintiff’s children and neighbours, PW2, PW3, PW4, C

PW5 and PW6, who were living with and near the plaintiff in
FELDA Bukit Senggeh, had seen the plaintiff toiling the land and
thus lent much weight to the plaintiff’s evidence in that respect.
Their evidence also supported the plaintiff’s story that she would
normally be teaching in the morning until about 12 noon, would D
thereafter prepare lunch for the family and by 2 pm would
proceed to the holding. They further averred that the larger part
of the family’s expenses were taken care of by the plaintiff, and
that the defendant was only assuming a small part of that burden.
The provisions for the family were however provided by FELDA. E
Evidence Of The Defendant Not Going To The Holding

Land Regularly And Of Only Going There To Send The
Plaintiff But Not Toiling It
[18] This evidence was supported by PW2 who said that his F
father rarely went to the holding, that if he ever visited it was
only for some ten minutes or so and that it was PW2 and his
siblings that that the rubber holding. Likewise, evidence of PW3,
PW4, PW5 and PW6 said that the defendant did go the holding
but only erratically and that too for a while and had no part in G
toiling the same. Indeed PW6 averred that “father only sent us
to the holding and thereafter he just went away and disappeared.”
Evidence As To Defendant’s Disposition to Engage in

Negative Activities H
[19] This evidence was supported by PW2 and PW6. They

were the parties’ children and should therefore be able to know
the conduct of their father. PW6 was indeed staying with the
defendant at one time and must have seen and observed the
I
defendant’s conduct.
A The Defendant’s Evidence
[20] The defendant when giving his evidence said that he had
left his job as a van driver some two years ago and is now
tapping rubber from a plot owned by his new wife at FELDA
B Bukit Senggeh. He further said that in the early years of his stint
at the FELDA scheme, he was toiling the land together with the
plaintiff, and that when the rubber trees were grown up, they
both were tapping the trees.
[21] On the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the court is of

C
the view that their evidence was consistent and fully supportive
of the plaintiff’s case. And based on the Qur’an, Sunnah and
consensus of the jurists, their evidence is also valid and admissible.
Allah s.w.t say in verse 282 of Surah al-Baqarah:
D %8L ¥I¦ T $£I UP$£
Which means:
and call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses

E And in verse 283:
¡- T$ ¡+ % 1¥ £ ©H% U$ $¤10 ´£
Which means:
F
Hide not testimony. He who hideth it, verily his heart is sinful.
Allah is aware of what ye do
According to Imam Nawawi in his Kitab ¦-%É$ ;%

$L´$ % O %4$´$ ª¦]$ « ¥ $N$£
G
whenever there are available only two witnesses in a case, it is
then incumbent upon them to give their respective testimonies.
[22] The plaintiff had also adduced documentary evidence

H marked as P1 to P6 relating to the property and no objection
thereof was made by the defendant. The defendant, indeed,
acknowledged that the plaintiff did contribute to the development
of the land.
[23] The next question is whether the property claimed to be

I
harta sepencarian by the plaintiff was acquired during the
subsistence of her marriage to the defendant, and met the
requirements of the law and Hukum Syarak.
[24] The facts showed that the plaintiff had married the A
defendant on 7 April 1969, was divorced 7 March 2003 and
12 children were born to the marriage. Their divorce was affirmed
by the Syariah Subordinate Court at Jasin. In any case, the
property claimed were acquired during their sojourn at the said
FELDA scheme. B
[25] As to the plaintiff’s contribution in acquiring the said

property, the question is whether the facts did or did not show
such contribution by the plaintiff. In this respect, I found as a
fact that it was upon the plaintiff’s appeal to the FELDA C
management that the latter had agreed to admit them as settlers
and to work on and develop the land allotted to them. The
plaintiff also thereupon toiled the land together with her children.
As showed by the evidence, the plaintiff worked as a Kindergarten
Teacher in the morning, would be at the plot by 2pm in the D
afternoon after returning to her house, and would return home
again about the time for Asar prayer.
[26] As to the extent of the plaintiff’s contribution in acquiring

the land, on the facts, the court came to the conclusion that the
E
plaintiff had contributed directly to the acquirement thereof, and
had further toiled and worked the land together with her children.
At the same time, she had taken good care of the children which
in turn saw them pursuing their education at institutions
of higher learning.
F
[27] Be that as it may, in the heat of the submissions by counsel
from both sides, the defendant’s counsel got the mandate from the
defendant to make an offer to the plaintiff, namely that the
defendant is agreeable and has consented to give a half-share of
the 10.4-acre plot of land known as No. PM 1294 Lot No. 3082 G
Mukim of Nyalas, District of Jasin, Melaka to the plaintiff. With
the agreement, the court would grant an Order in Terms thereof.
In any case, the defendant intended to proceed with the other
claims of the plaintiff. And that being so, all evidence as are
adduced by the plaintiff and the defendant are still admissible, as H
they are so interconnected to each other.
[28] As to the plaintiff’s claim on the property known as

document of Title No. PM 1607 Lot No. 3989 in the Mukim of
Nyalas, District of Jasin, Melaka, a plot of some 1123 square I
metres or 12,087 square foot - on which stood a house worth
A some RM50,000 built by the plaintiff out of the old house

provided by FELDA - it is the court’s view that the parties had
stayed on the property since they set foot on the scheme on
4 March 1974. This property, in short, constituted the
matrimonial house in which they lived ever since.
B
[29] It is the court’s further view that the plaintiff had
contributed, monetarily or otherwise, to the renovations of the
above house. Doubtless, the monetary contribution came from the
salaries she received as a teacher. This aside, part of the sums
C must have come from the proceeds of their rubber and palm oil
sales.
[30] The plaintiff had valued the house at approximately

RM50,000. In the meanwhile, the defendant too had contributed
inter alia by withdrawing RM4000 from his EPF and used the
D
money towards building an additional room to the said house.
[31] In this issue, since the plaintiff had clearly contributed to

the development of the house, she stands entitled to a half-share
on the RM50,000 in question. Likewise, since the defendant had
E contributed his EPF savings of RM4000 aforesaid towards
expanding the house, he too is entitled to a half-share of the value
of the property.
[32] It follows that it is the view of this court that if the

F defendant had wished to take over or divest the house unto
himself, then the defendant must pay the plaintiff RM25,000 for
her share therein. Likewise, if the plaintiff wishes to retain the
house as hers, then she is duty bound to pay the defendant the
same amount.
G
[33] As to the defendant’s counterclaim on a house at JA 2627,
Rumah Awam Pondok Batang - it was the defendant’s case that
the house ought to be declared as harta sepencarian and that he
was entitled to a two-thirds share thereof. He argued that the
house was purchased during the subsistence of their marriage and
H
that both were evenly involved in the purchase transactions that
took place at a lawyer’s office in Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka.
According to the defendant, they managed to purchase a corner
lot for a consideration of RM27,000, and that, to partially pay for
the purchase price, the plaintiff withdrew some RM10,000 from
I
her savings in EPF, while he withdrew RM4000 also from his A

saving therein. That said, the facts however showed, the RM4000
so withdrawn by the defendant was utilised towards expanding
their Felda house at Bukit Senggeh, Jasin, Melaka, and did not go
towards paying for the deposit for the house at JA 2627.
B
[34] The plaintiff’s resisted the defendant’s counterclaim on the
house at JA 2627 aforesaid, arguing that she purchased the said
house from the developer, Pelasari Sdn Bhd. According to the
plaintiff, she went to the developer’s office alone to negotiate on
and effectuate the sale transactions. When questioned during the C
examination, the plaintiff averred that the defendant knew about
the purchase by her of the house, and that the defendant had no
objection to it since the money was wholly the plaintiff’s. It was
further pointed that the purchase was made through a loan from
the Maybank, Jasin, that the purchase price was RM28,000 and D
that the loan amount was RM18,000. Proof of the loan was
tendered in the form of P14 and P17, ie, documents called
“Inquiry Loan Balance” dated 14 January 2006 which showed
that the plaintiff had taken a loan of RM18,000. According to the
bank statement dated 14 January 2006, the balance remaining E
payable was RM9,560.04. Also, all the correspondences in respect
of the loan were with the plaintiff. As for the deposit, it has been
wholly paid by the plaintiff from her EPF savings, her salary from
the Kindergarten, her direct selling activities and from selling
cookies. In all, some RM10,000 was paid as deposit and proof of F
such payment was tendered and marked as P15. Although the
receipt showed an amount of RM9,700, the plaintiff reiterated that
a total of RM10,000 was paid by her. As for the monthly
payments, the plaintiff said that a sum of RM173, and sometimes
more, was paid by her monthly. Proof of the monthly payments G
was tendered and tagged as P16. Proof of ownership of the house
in the form of List of Proprietors of Premises issued by the
Tampin Town Council was tendered and marked as P13. It was
also the plaintiff’s contention that all quit rents and other taxes
respecting the property was paid by her. H
[35] The plaintiff’s witnesses, namely PW2, PW4, PW5 and

PW6 had all testified that the house was purchased by the plaintiff
through a bank loan, and indeed PW2 went so far as saying that
no one else except the plaintiff had contributed to the purchase
I
thereof.
A [36] The court is of opinion that all transactions for the purchase
of the house were done by the plaintiff. The documents relevant
to the purchase were all tendered by the plaintiff, thereby showing
that it was she that transacted them. She also made the monthly
payments to the bank. In fact, the plaintiff did confront the
B defendant as to whose money was being used for the purchase,
whereof the defendant answered, rather nonchalantly, ‘your
money’. This showed that the defendant was non-committal and
not interested about the purchase. Although the defendant did say
that he had accompanied the plaintiff to the lawyer’s office in Jalan
C Hang Jebat to execute the sale and purchase agreement, the
plaintiff denied that and reiterated that he was not there. The
defendant also did not adduce anything, documentarily or
otherwise, as would support a contention that he had contributed
or was in any way entitled to the property, and if so to what
D extent. The defendant’s witness, DW1, only adverted to the
property as claimed by the plaintiff, and had no knowledge on the
house JA 2627, Rumah Awam Pondok Patang claimed by the
defendant apart from saying that it was acquired during the
subsistence of their marriage. The witness further did not identify
E as to which of the property that the defendant had contributed
in its acquirement. In the circumstances, the court finds that the
defendant’s counter claim is without merit and that the defendant
had failed to satisfy the burden of proof required of him by
ss. 72, 73 and 74 of the Syariah Court Evidence (State of
F Malacca) Enactment 2002. As it were, the burden of proof
(adducing facts and evidence) borne by the defendant to establish
his counter claim is arduous and needs to be convincing. Short of
that, it must descend into the realm of “uncertainty”, which is
divisible into three categories, viz. zan, syak and waham. Zan
G means suspicion or uncertainty but more bordering on the truth.
It is insufficient to establish the defendant’s claim. Syak is
suspicion and uncertainty arising from possibilities that were so
equally as strong as would not allow a party to make a decision,
one way or the other. Waham, on the other hand, is suspicion or
H uncertainty that borders more towards being wrong. Upon the
maxim that zan may sometimes be the truth, zan as would level
up to ghalabah Az-zan or “grave suspicion” is admissible in proof
and evidence.
I
Consequently, in this case, the defendant is duty bound to A

establish his claim convincingly or to the level of grave suspicion.
That it is so is supported by the case of Hawa Embong lwn. Ahmad
Muda [1425 H] JH XVII/II at p. 199-218 vide the judgment of
the Terengganu Syariah High Court judge, YA Dato’ Ismail bin
Yahya, dated 28 Rejab 1424 H or 25 September 2003. B
[37] In the appeal case of Mat Sharie bin Yaakub lwn Che Mas
binti Abdullah (1426 H) JH XIX/1 at p.109-123 the court ruled
that an applicant must establish evidence that the acquirement of
the property, be it land, houses, cars, jewelries, accessories etc., C
occurred during the subsistence of the marriage. It was also
argued that the acquirement must be made possible by the knot
of marriage that existed between the parties. The nexus must also
be admissible in nature. It is up to the applicant to prove the
nexus and the connection between the acquirement of the D
property claimed and the marriage. In that respect, the viva voce
evidence of the litigants and of their witnesses, as well as
documentary evidence adduced may help elucidate and prove the
parties’ matrimonial rights to the property.
E
[38] The court must also have clear idea of the extent of the
effort and energy expended by the claimant in acquiring the
property, or the time spent in the attempt to acquire same. In this
case, by the evidence given by witnesses of the parties, the court
could gauge the effort/contribution made by the defendant. Having
F
heard the evidence, it is incumbent on the court to make a ruling
on the extent of the contribution.
[39] The court nonetheless wishes to first refer to the case of

Maimon Mohamad Zain lwn. Mohammed Azmi Mohd Said [1427]
JH XXI/I at p. 45-53. It was ruled in that case that the house in G
question at No. 728, Taman Pancor Jaya must be registered in
the name of the plaintiff, since payment there for was made
through deductions of the plaintiff’s salary. It was the court’s
view, upon the evidence and the documents tendered before it,
that the property was acquired through the sole effort of the H
plaintiff. As for the claim for another house at Ustari Jaya, a piece
of land at Sayong and a Kancil car, there being no evidence or
documents adduced to support the claim, the court ruled that the
claim thereof was not proved.
I
A [40] In the present case, I found the defendant in his evidence

said that he had contributed physically by being present at the
lawyer’s office at Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka together with the
plaintiff to transact the sale and purchase of the house. However,
as argued and pointed out by the plaintiff, the defendant himself
B was unsure and not consistent as to the place the execution of
the agreement was taking place, ie. whether it was at the lawyer’s
office at Jalan Hang Jebat or at a place near the developer’s office.
In any case, I did not see any or much contribution by the
defendant. Being present at the lawyer’s office once or once in a
C while for the transaction of the sale and purchase of the house, is
insufficient to entitle the defendant to harta sepencarian of the
property. The contribution that might be considered must be one
that is capable of being quantified or measured, such as monetary
contribution or substantial physical or mental effort or the likes
D which could be subjected to assessment. Could the defendant’s
act of being present at the above place, even once, be taken into
consideration then? The answer is no, for such act must come
within the ambit of a husband’s marital duty towards his wife and
nothing more. In any case, I have not found anything in the
E evidence adduced that supported the defendant’s contention in
this respect. In the event, the court concludes that the defendant
had failed to prove his case as per the requirement of the Hukum
Syarak.
F [41] Al-Sayed al-Bakri Ibnu al-Sayed Mohamad Shatha

al-Dumyati (died in 1300 H) in his kitab “ ¦-%É$ ª %$ ”
al-Maktabah al-Taufiqiyah Publication, Egypt, Vol. 4, at
p. 508-509, said:
¡¦I¥% §I$ Y¥ %, ªY ¤ &

G
(i) Any claim instituted by a plaintiff must be clear and
condescend to details
¡¦ «I ªO ¤0 &

(ii) A defendant is bound to answer the claim
H
¡¦ «I$ ¦¥ &
(iii) The defendant must be clearly identified
¬MD& ¬¤H% ]%0 ´ &

(iv) A claim instituted must not be contrary to another claim
I
% ¡¦ «I$ ¤¥ & A

(v) Every claimant or every defendant must be of the age of
majority
%<· %O1 % ¤¥ &
(vi) Every claimant and every defendant is bound by the law. B
And Abu Bakar ibnu Muhamad Syata’ al-Damyati in his kitab

Hasyiah I’aanah al-Talibin, published by Darul Fikry, Beirut,
Lebanon 1418H/1997 at p. 290 said:
C
µ ª,L$ H£I<£ ª=£ ª 8 MJ L%, ¬¤I$ «£
¡,£ %,´$ $J$ % ª4µ4MJ §¥
Which means:
In cases of claims for land and anything attached unto it (house), D
the direction and location of the house as well as its four-cornered
boundaries must be spelt out; if the boundary is not known, it is
not sufficient that only three facets of the boundary is mentioned
[42] The court is further of opinion that the defendant’s counter

E
claim is irrelevant as all transactions pertaining to the loan and its
repayment were executed by and in the name of the plaintiff. The
defendant’s contribution, if any, has not reached the stage where
it ought to be reimbursed notwithstanding that the acquirement of
the house was effected during the subsistence of the marriage.
F
[43] As for the plaintiff’s claim for a half-share from the proceeds
of the lease of land PM 1294 Lot No. 3082 in question
amounting to RM5,400, it is the court’s finding that the plaintiff
has had a hand in the successful development of the FELDA land.
The proceeds received from the land had been utilized for the G
welfare and benefits of the family as a whole. The court cannot
ignore the roles played by the plaintiff in this respect and she was
therefore entitled to be granted the relief sought for in respect of
the proceeds aforesaid.
H
In this respect, al-Ustaz Mifdad Mahmud al-Hamdani, a legal
practitioner from Iraq in his book ¦8£O §%$ %}$ at p. 85 said:
M1U ª¦8£O$ L$H 7%4& ª¦ 8 « %0º$ ¦8£O â=¥£
I, %0º$ $K â=¥£ %LIY M}$_ , % ¦, ª I
¦8£ O %O ¤¥£ ;$£O$
A Which means:
The husband and wife are entitled to regard household items and
apparatus as their collective matrimonial asset irrespective of the
source or sources of the goods. This is because the solemnization
of marriage as undertaken by them both is proof enough of their
B
agreement to share, such that such property must be taken as
their shared property .
Likewise, Dr Yusufal-Qardawi in his kitab

§µP º$ H%Y1º$ § µD¶$£ ¦$ L £H published by Maktabah
C Wahbah, Cairo at p. 138, said:
µ 1Pº %¦ £& %¦I, %Qº$ ¡K-¥ $£ H¤ 9 ¤ $
¢M¦ & ¡Q ¥ %$ %& $¤P ¡1 ª¦-É$ HL$¤$
¡0M-D£ ¢I 9, %¥MT
D
Which means:
To work is to undertake to do something whether physically or
mentally with dedication so as to convert raw materials into
something beneficial and usable. It does not matter that the
E
worker is doing it for his own interest or for others, or whether
the capital, expertise or experience thereof is shared with others
[44] The court would also refer to the kitab

µPº$ § $ 3%¤ authored by Dr Abdul Sami’ al-Misriy,
F published by Maktabah Wahbah, Cairo in 1928 at p. 10 viz:
ª âE §I, £& §J %Qº$ ¡K-¥ I 8 ¤ $
H¤8¤ §T ª ©H%¥N £&ª¥H%Y1*
G Which means:
Work denotes the sacrifices offered by man whether physical or
mental in order to produce better products as would spur
economic development or improve the available products.
H Bearing in mind the views of these Islamic intellectuals, the court

would conclude that the ideas or views or mental calculations as
advanced by a wife towards the procurement of a property should
not be overlooked and may be taken as contribution sufficient to
entitle her to regard the property as harta sepencaraian.
I
[45] In the present case, I find that the defendant had employed A
a Chinese contractor to fell the rubber trees on Lot No. 3082.
The felled trees were then sold for RM16,000 and part of the
proceeds was thereafter used for the planting of oil palms thereon
the land and to fence up the land. The amount spent by the
defendant for all this was RM10,000, whilst RM2,000 was given B
to the plaintiff. The balance sum, ie, RM4,000 was used for the
family’s daily needs, including for the schooling expenditure of their
12 children. All this were taking place in the years 1998, 1999,
2000 and 2001. Being a mere land settler, the expenditure as
undertaken by the defendant for the children was not of course C
being recorded in a way an accounting officer would record an
account. That notwithstanding, in summing up any direct
contribution towards the procurement of the land, the court
would closely examine the extent to which the money was being
utilized by the defendant. Has the money been used by the D
defendant for his personal interest, or has it been utilized for the
family’s needs or for the development of the FELDA land?
[46] The court found that sometime between 2003 and 2004
the defendant had leased the said land to a Chinese contractor E
for two years for a consideration of RM5,000 per year. According
to the defendant, initially he sought to lease out the land to the
Chinese contractor for five years, ie, from 2003 to 2008, whereby
the latter would take care of the land, pick up the fruits and make
proper roadway for lorries to go into the land. The defendant F
acknowledged to receiving RM6,500 from the Chinese contractor.
The defendant however changed his mind about the lease after
discovering that he stood to lose financially rather than gain from
the transaction.
G
[47] Eventually the defendant revoked the lease and reclaimed
the land from the Chinese contractor. The defendant however had
to pay damages to the contractor, for which some RM300 per
month had been paid by the defendant. In the meanwhile, FELDA
had taken over management of the land, and for that had
H
reimbursed the Chinese contractor RM5,400 and deducted
RM300 a month from the defendant’s subsistence allowance. To
date, only RM800 more need to be deducted and deductions
would cease in a few months. Be that as it may, according to the
defendant, FELDA had since stopped deducting and would
I
re-coup the money after the fruits were harvested. Upon these
A narrations by the defendant, it is clear that the money received

from the lease of the land had all been accounted for by way of
expenditure for the family’s needs and for the care of the land.
This apart, some RM2,000 had been handed to the plaintiff
herself. The RM6,500 thus received from the Chinese contractor
B had also been partly used to compensate the latter and for other
expenses. This being the case, the plaintiff’s claim for a half-share
of the proceeds of the lease must stand as irrelevant and
unreasonable, as the same had been well spent for the above
purposes.
C
[48] As for the plaintiff’s claim for a half-share of the subsistence
RM750 monthly allowances paid by FELDA from may 2004 to
May 2007, the court found, and as so averred by the defendant,
that the claim arose only after the divorce between the parties.
D According to the defendant, he did receive the sum amount from
FELDA at the material time, but that the same had inter alia been
spent on following expenses:
a. Personal expenses for the defendant - RM200
E b. Electricity and water bills - RM65
c. Car installment - RM232
d. Petrol for car - RM300
F e. Maintenance for daughters (Salwa and Fatimah) - RM250
(Salwa RM200 and Fatimah RM50)
Total: RM1047
[49] It would be seen that the expenditure aforesaid had

G
surpassed the defendant’s income. The facts however showed that
the FELDA subsistence allowances apart, the defendant had been
working as a rubber tapper from which he was taking home some
RM600 a month. This means that the defendant had been earning
about RM1,350 a month. It follows that deducting the RM1,047
H
expenditure from the said RM1,350, there was a balance of
RM303 accruing to the defendant. This balance sum is
nonetheless and by any standard not a big amount. In the
circumstances, and bearing in mind the expenses for which the
RM750 was being spent on, there was no merit for the plaintiff
I
to stake a half-share claim to the FELDA’s subsistence allowances.
[50] As for the plaintiff’s claim to a half-share of the payments A

made by FELDA beginning June 2007 until the issuance of the
Harta Sepencarian Order by the court, it was the defendant’s
evidence that he had taken a new wife in June 2007, whereof he
had to spend some RM400 a month for the expenses of his new
family, including his step child. This defendant’s expenses had thus B
increased to RM1,447 a month (RM1,047 + RM400) considering
that his income remained at RM1,350 per month. The defendant
acknowledged the shortage of RM97 a month on his expenses,
but asserted that he tried to make do by undertaking some odd
jobs in the settlement. C
[51] The plaintiff in her evidence testified that ever since June
2007 FELDA had paid the defendant RM1,150 per month. The
court found that all the monies as so paid by FELDA had been
utilized by the defendant for expenses as narrated above. D
[52] In all the plaintiff’s claims, beginning from the claim for
a half-share in the proceeds from the lease of the land PM 1294
Lot No. 3082 amounting to RM5,400, to the claim for a half-
share in the subsistence allowance of RM750 a month paid by
E
FELDA from May 2004 to May 2007, and eventually to her claim
for a half-share in the same allowance paid by FELDA from June
2007 to the date of the issuance of the Harta Sepencarian Order
- it is the court’s view that all these claims were unfair to the
defendant, considering that the defendant had already agreed to
F
secede a half-share of the FELDA land itself to the plaintiff.
Allowing such claims of the plaintiff would mean granting the
plaintiff more than what she was entitled to. It be noted that the
defendant had established that the monies were being spent to
repay the FELDA management, as well as to fulfill the defendant’s
G
obligations towards his children with the plaintiff and his new
family including his step child.
[53] Upon the evidence as adduced by the plaintiff and the

defendant and their witnesses, and upon the arguments of their
respective counsel, I am satisfied that both the plaintiff and the H
defendant must partly be successful with their respective claims.
In the event, the court would order the following:
I
A Orders
1. The court would affirm and declare that the property which
became the subject of the claims here, namely:
a. A piece of land held under document of title No. PM1294,

B
Lot No. 3082, Mukim of Nyalas, District of Jasin, Melaka
with an area of 4.217 hectares or 10.4 acres; and
b. A piece of land held under document of title No. PM1607,

Lot No. 3989, Mukim of Nyalas, District of Jasin, Melaka
C with an area of 1123 sq metres or 12,087 sq foot together
with a house which the plaintiff erected thereon out of the
old FELDA house at the cost of RM50,000
Are and do constitute harta sepencarian of the plaintiff and

D the defendant.
2. The court orders that the piece of land known as PM 1294,

Lot 3082, Mulim of Nyalas, District of Jasin, Melaka to be
divided into two shares, wherefore a half-share of 5.2 acres
thereof to be transferred and registered in the name of the
E
plaintiff Hanipah binti Mohd Nor, while the other half-share of
same acreage to be transferred and registered in the name of
the defendant Baharom bin Aman @ Abd Rahman.
3. The court orders that a piece of land held under document of

F title PM1067, Lot 3989, Mukim of Nyalas, District of Jasin,
Melaka with an area of 1123 sq metres or 12,087 sq foot
together with a house which the plaintiff erected thereon out
of the old FELDA house at the cost of RM50,000, be divided
into two parts in terms of its value, with the plaintiff and the
G defendant entitled to RM25,000 each; it is further ordered
that if the plaintiff wishes to own the house, the plaintiff must
pay the defendant RM25,000, and so it is vice versa.
4. The court orders that the relevant authorities do execute the

H orders herein by inserting and conferring titles to the property
as per these orders.
5. The court dismisses the other claims of the plaintiff for a half-
share of the proceeds from the lease of the land amounting
RM5400, a half-share of the defendant’s subsistence
I
allowances from May 2004 to May 2007 and a half-share of
the allowances paid by FELDA to the defendant from June
2007 to date of issuance of this harta sepencarian order.
6. The court dismisses the defendant’s claim to declare the A

property known as JA 2627 Rumah Awam Pondok Batang as
harta sepencarian or to a two-thirds share thereof; and
7. Each party to bear own costs.

B
Bahasa Malaysia Judgment
PENGHAKIMAN C
Mahammad Ibrahim H:
[1] Dalam kes ini plantif dan defendan menuntut hartanah dan
sebuah rumah di atas diisytiharkan sebagai Harta Sepencarian. di D
samping itu juga pihak plantif memohon supaya harta dan rumah
tersebut di bahagikan sama banyak mengikut kadar sumbangan
masing-masing.
[2] Dalam kes ini mahkamah adalah diberi kuasa untuk

E
mendengar membicarakan seterusnya membuat keputusan terhadap
tuntutan harta sepencarian tersebut. Ini adalah jelas seperti mana
di dalam s. 3(b)(x) Enakmen Pentadbiran Agama Islam Negeri
Melaka tahun 2002.
Menurut s. 3(b)(iv): F
Dalam bidang kuasa Malnya mendengar dan memutuskan semua

tindakan atau prosiding jika semua pihak dalam tindakan atau
prosiding itu adalah orang Islam dan tindakan atau prosiding itu
adalah berhubung dengan pembahagian atau tuntutan harta
sepencarian. G
[3] Mahkamah juga diberi bidangkuasa untuk mendengar dan

memutuskan harta sepencarian tersebut seperti mana yang di
peruntukan di dalam s. 122 Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga
Islam (Negeri Melaka) 2002. H
I
A Mengikut s. 122(1):
Mahkamah hendaklah mempunyai kuasa apabila membenarkan
lafaz talak atau apabila membuat suatu perintah perceraian untuk
memerintahkan supaya apa-apa aset-aset yang diperolehi oleh
pihak-pihak itu dalam masa perkahwinan dengan usaha bersama
B
mereka dibahagi antara mereka atau supaya mana-mana aset itu
dijual dan hasil jualan itu dibahagi antara pihak-pihak itu.
[4] Dalam kes ini telah terbukti kepada mahkamah bahawa oleh
sebab mereka telah bercerai di Mahkamah Rendah Syariah Melaka
C maka plaintif dan defendan berhak menuntut harta sepencarian
tersebut.
[5] Daripada keterangan-keterangan dan hujahan yang diberikan,

mahkamah dapati timbul bebrapa persoalan mengenai tuntutan
harta sepencarian tersebut, iaitu:
D
i) Adakah pihak plaintif dan defendan berhak untuk menuntut
harta sepencarian tersebut mengikut undang-undang dan
Syarak.
E ii) Adakah pihak plaintif dan defendan mempunyai bukti-bukti

yang kukuh terhadap sumbangan mereka dalam mendapat harta
tersebut
iii) Berapakah takat-takat sumbangan mereka.

F [6] Mengenai persoalan pertama mahkamah berpendapat bahawa
plaintif dan defendan berhak menuntut harta-harta tersebut sebagai
harta sepencarian. Ini adalah berdasarkan kepada s. 122 Enakmen
Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam 2002 ada menyebut bahawa:
G 122(2):Pada menjalankan kuasa yang diberikan oleh subseksyen

(1) Mahkamah hendaklah mengambil perhatian tentang:
a) Takat sumbangan-sumbangan yang telah dibuat oleh setiap

satu pihak dalam bentuk wang, harta atau kerja bagi
memperoleh aset-aset itu.
H
b) Apa-apa hutang yang terhutang oleh salah satu pihak yang
telah dilakukan bagi manfaat bersama mereka.
c) Keperluan-keperluan anak-anak yang belum dewasa daripada

perkahwinan itu jika ada dan tertakluk kepada pertimbangan-
I pertimbangan itu, mahkamah hendaklah membuat
pertimbangan yang sama banyak.
[7] Mengikut tafsiran Harta Sepencarian di dalam Undang- A

Undang Keluarga Islam Negeri Melaka 2002, harta sepencarian
harta yang diperolehi bersama oleh suami isteri semasa
perkahwinan berkuatkuasa mengikut syarat-syarat yang ditentukan
oleh Hukum syarak.
B
“harta sepencarian” ertinya harta yang diperoleh bersama oleh
suami dan isteri semasa perkahwinan berkuat kuasa mengikut
syarat-syarat yang ditentukan oleh Hukum Syarak;
[8] Peruntukan s. 122 Enakmen Undang-Undang Keluarga Islam

C
Negeri Melaka, jika dibaca bersama dengan tafsiran harta
sepencarian di atas membawa maksud harta sepencarian tersebut
boleh wujud dalam tiga keadaan.
Pertama: Harta yang diperolehi bersama oleh suami isteri

semasa perkahwinan berkuat kuasa menurut syarat-syarat yang D
ditentukan oleh hukum syarak dengan usaha bersama mereka.
Kedua: Harta yang diperolehi bersama oleh suami isteri semasa

perkahwinan berkuat kuasa menurut syarat-syarat yang
ditentukan oleh Hukum Syarak dengan usaha tunggal satu E
pihak kepada perkahwinan itu.
Ketiga: Harta-harta yang dipunyai oleh satu pihak sebelum

perkahwinan yang telah dimajukan kepada sebahagian besarnya
dalam masa perkahwinan itu berkuat kuasa menurut syarat-
F
syarat yang di tentukan oleh hukum syarak oleh pihak yang
satu lagi itu atau dengan usaha bersama suami isteri.
[9] Di dalam Kitab al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siasah al-

Syar’iyyah, Ibnu Qayyim al-Jauziyyah cetakan Dar al Kitab
al-Alamiyah, pada ms. 22 ada menyebut: G
¦8£O$ §$I0 § ¤¤¥ % $ L¤ 8 & uJ £

%=$ I¥ ¤ ¤$ * %I$£ 2¦-$ %1 ¦%Y$£
ª¦Q=$ I¦%, ©M- ´ ¡$ ª'Q$ ¢K § ?¦=Y$£ ¡IX «
H
Û%E$I¥ ¡, %M-1´ %%M-1* ¤ % I %H¤8£ ,
S&M$MP%< ¡D MD$£ ª% ¡P&L «£ ¢M¦ ª%
% L%-1* µ ª¥H% ª%| I¥ ', É =£
I
A Yang bererti:
Di antaranya ialah di kalangan ahli perundangan Islam telah
sepakat berpendapat bahawa di dalam kes tuntutan antara suami
isteri yang sama-sama berusaha dalam mendapatkan harta rumah
tangga dan berkedai, tuntutan yang sedemikian hendaklah di terima
B
berdasarkan keterangan yang membuktikan tuntutan itu.
Sebenarnya di dalam persoalan ini, pemilikan sesuatu harta itu
tidak dikira hanya semata-mata berdasarkan nama yang tertera di
dalam harta itu. Setakat nama yang tertera di dalam sesuatu harta
itu belum tentu membuktikan pemilikannya. Kenyataan sebegini
C adalah kerana seandainya diambil kira hak milik sesuatu harta
semata-mata mengikut nama yang tertera di dalam harta itu, maka
nescaya serban yang dipakai di kepala seseorang yang merampas
serban kepunyaan orang lain akan dikira sebagai serban kepunyaan
perampas itu, sedangkan pengiktirafan yang sedemikian adalah
suatu kezaliman dan tidak diambil kira.
D
[10] Di dalam Kitab Bughyah al-Mustarsyidin, oleh Sayyid Abdul
Rahman Bin Muhammad Bin Hussain bin Umar meninggal dunia
tahun 132 Hijrah, ms. 197, cetakan Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah
Beirut Lebonan tahun 1998 M juga ada menyatakan:
E
2Y<£ % <& O¦0 ª¥M ´£ M5& % ¥¶ ¥ £ ¦8£O$ %< %É1D*
- ¡ §T § MY0 ¡4L$£ ´£ %I<¶ ?Y¥ 3¤ £& ªM %¦,
8M´ J* ¡-<%X ´* ?Y$ £& O¦¦1$
F Yang bererti:
Telah bercampur harta suami isteri dan tidak diketahui harta siapa
yang lebih banyak tidak ada tanda-tanda yang dapat membezakan
harta salah seorangnya kemudian berlaku perpisahan antara
keduanya ataupun mati maka tidak sah salah seorang dari mereka
G (suami atau isteri) atau warisnya memerintah (Mengguna) sesuatu
daripada harta itu sebelum dapat dibezakan ataupun sebelum
adanya persetujuan antara pihak-pihak (al-Sulh), kecuali bersama-
sama dengan pemiliknya oleh sebab tidak merajjij (tanda yang
membezakan di antara harta-harta berkenaan)
H
[11] Di dalam kes ini, mengikut keterangan plaintif bahawa harta-
harta yang berkenaan telah diperolehi bersama plaintif dan
defendan semasa memasuki tanah Rancangan FELDA. Usaha ini
dibuat oleh plaintif dengan merayu kepada FELDA supaya mereka
diterima masuk menjadi peneroka FELDA dengan syarat mereka
I
adalah pasangan suami isteri yang telah berkahwin. Akhirnya
mereka diterima masuk sebagai peneroka FELDA di mukim Nyalas
Daerah Jasin Melaka. Menurut keterangan plaintif bahawa beliau
yang mengusahakan tanah tersebut dengan dibantu oleh Defendan A

dan anak-anaknya. Pada tahun 1978 sehingga tahun 1997 mereka
telah mengusahakan, menebas dan membajak di kawasan FELDA
yang telah ditanami dengan pokok getah. Kemudian selepas tahun
1998 tanah FELDA itu pula ditanam semula dengan kelapa sawit.
B
[12] Plaintif seterusnya memberi keterangan bahawa walaupun
sebagai peneroka dalam masa yang sama beliau sebagai guru tadika.
Plaintif menyatakan di dalam keterangannya bahawa di sebelah pagi
sebelum beliau pergi mengajar, beliau akan pergi menoreh dahulu.
Kemudian beliau akan pergi mengajar di tadika. Beliau pergi C
mengajar dengan menaiki bas M.O.S. dan akan kembali dari tadika
pada lebih kurang 12 tengah hari. Sekembali beliau ke rumah,
beliau akan memasak makanan anak-anak. Pada sebelah petang
pula lebih kurang jam 2 petang beliau akan ke kebun menguruskan
kerja-kerja seperti menajak tanah dan membersihkan kebun. Anak- D
anak beliau akan menemani beliau ke kebun. Semasa plaintif
mempunyai anak yang ramai, anak perempuan beliau bernama Aliza
yang akan menjaga adik-adik yang masih kecil. Keadaan ini berlaku
pada tiap-tiap hari hinggalah bertahun-tahun. Pada sebelah petang
pula sekembali dari kebun, beliau akan menguruskan anak-anak dan E
rumah tangga. Mengenai kerja defendan, plaintif menjelaskan
bahawa defendan adalah seorang yang pemalas dan ada masa
beliau ke kebun dan ada masa tidak. Apabila anak-anak sudah
besar, mereka membantu membersihkan kebun dan menoreh getah.
Menurut plaintif lagi perkara itu berlaku pada sekitar tahun 1978 F
sehingga tahun 1997, selepas tahun 1997 hingga tahun 1998,
pokok getah telah ditebang dan kemudian di tanam semula kelapa
sawit. Bila ditanya peguam semasa soalan utama siapa menanam
kelapa sawit, plaintif menyatakan bahawa apabila mendapat hasil
jualan daripada penebangan pokok getah, defendan telah G
mengupah seorang cina untuk menanam kelapa sawit dan selepas
proses menanam tersebut, Cina tersebut telah menyerah semula
kebun kepada defendan. Kemudian pada tahun 2003 defendan
telah memajak pula tanah tersebut kepada satu kontraktor Cina
sehingga tahun 2005 dan defendan telah mendapat bayaran H
sebanyak RM5,000 setahun. Keseluruhan wang yang diterima dari
kontraktor cina tersebut adalah sebanyak RM18,000. Menurut
plaintif, wang tersebut tidak diberikan kepadanya walau sedikit pun
sehinggalah FELDA mengambil alih pengurusan hartanah FELDA
tersebut. I
A [13] Di dalam soal balas oleh peguam defendan, mahkamah dapati

plaintif telah keluar rumah kerana ada perintah dari mahkamah
Majistret Jasin yang memberi perlindungan “Interim Protection
Order” (IPO) kerana defendan telah memukul plaintif. Pihak
peguam plaintif telah menyerahkan borang I mengenai keganasan
B rumah tangga untuk di tandakan sebagai P10.
[14] Berkenaan kebajikan diri defendan pula, plaintif dalam

keterangannya menyatakan beliaulah juga yang menguruskan diri
defendan termasuk makan minum, pakaian, membasuh baju dan
C segala urusan rumah tangga. Plaintif juga menyatakan semasa
berkahwin dengan defendan, kehidupan mereka sangat susah
kerana tabiat defendan yang suka menghabiskan masa dengan
perkara-perkara yang tidak baik. Tabiat defendan ini adalah dari
muda sehingga tua dan sehingga ke saat plaintif bercerai dengan
D defendan. Untuk menampung kehidupan anak-anak yang semakin
ramai, plaintif juga membuat jualan kuih-muih. Defendan tidak
membantu dari segi kewangan. Berkenaan makanan, pihak FELDA
telah memberi bantuan berbentuk barang makanan sebanyak
RM150 setelah ditolak hutang dan setelah ditolak hasil jualan
E getah. Hasil pendapatan jualan kuih-muih plaintif gunakan untuk
anak-anak. Semasa anak-anak semakin membesar contohnya
sewaktu Shahrul Anuar ingin memasuki Universiti, plaintif membuat
pinjaman koperasi sebanyak RM2,000.
Keterangan Saksi-saksi Plaintif

F
Keterangan Berkenaan Pekerjaan Plaintif Sebagai Guru Tadika Dan
Peneroka
[15] Keterangan ini disokong oleh SP1 bahawa plaintif telah

G memasuki FELDA bersama defendan. SP1 adalah Penolong
Pengurus FELDA Bukit Senggeh dan keterangan SP1 juga adalah
sebagai keterangan pakar yang menerangkan tentang prosedur-
prosedur dan peraturan-peraturan yang di kenakan oleh FELDA
kepada peneroka-peneroka. SP1 juga menyokong keterangan-
H keterangan plaintif seperti mengesahkan P1 dan P2 (tanah
tersebut) dan defendan ada menyewakan tanah 10 ekar tersebut
kepada kontraktor Cina. Apabila FELDA mengambil alih tanah
tersebut maka FELDA telah membayar semula kepada kontraktor
Cina tersebut sebanyak RM300 sebulan selama tempoh 18 bulan.
I Bayaran ini telah di bayar mulai bulan Mei 2006. Bayaran ini
diambil dari jumlah bayaran sara diri yang dibayar oleh FELDA A
kepada defendan sebanyak RM750 sebulan. Bayaran sara hidup ini
telah dibayar kepada defendan bermula Mei 2004 sehingga Mei
2007. Selepas tempoh tiga tahun FELDA akan membayar hasil
kepada defendan, iaitu sebanyak RM250 satu tan dan defendan
dijangka mendapat hasil sehingga lima tan. Ini bermakna defendan B
boleh memperoleh RM1,250 sebulan. Semasa SP1 memberi
keterangan ini pada tarikh 30 Mei 2006 bahawa defendan telah
pun menerima bayaran. SP1 seterusnya memberi keterangan pada
asalnya tanah tersebut tidak boleh dibahagi separuh-paruh, tetapi
oleh kerana ada pindaan yang dibuat oleh parlimen pada tahun C
2002 maka bekas isteri layak mendapat bahagian bersama di atas
tanah tersebut. Ini sekiranya bekas suami bersetuju untuk
membahagikan bahagian tanah kepada bekas isteri. Jika bekas
suami tidak bersetuju bekas isteri dikehendaki membuat tuntutan
ke Mahkamah Syariah. Apabila mahkamah telah membuat D
keputusan bahawa hartanah tersebut adalah harta sepencarian,
perintah mahkamah tersebut hendaklah dihantar ke Pejabat Tanah
Daerah untuk di proses dan dimasukkan hak milik bersama
terhadap tanah tersebut.
E
[16] SP1 di dalam keterangannya telah mengemukakan dokumen
“Peraturan Tuntutan Harta Sepencarian, Nafkah Dan Hak Bekas
Isteri” Pekeliling Bil. 1/2006 dari Jabatan Tanah. Di dalam
pekeliling ini menyatakan carta proses memasukkan nama bekas
isteri sebagai pemegang/pemilik bersama. Ini bermakna seseorang F
bekas isteri adalah layak untuk mendapat tanah FELDA sebagai
harta sepencarian walaupun nama bekas suami tertera di atas
geran hak milik tersebut. Pekeliling ini seterusnya di tanda P19.
Menurut pekeliling tersebut, bekas isteri juga berhak dimasukkan
nama di dalam geran tersebut. Ini bermakna bekas isteri juga G
berhak menikmati hasil yang diperolehi dari tanah Felda di Lot
No 3082. Mukim Nyalas, Daerah Jasin Melaka.
[17] SP2, 3, 4, 5 dan 6 juga menyokong bahawa plaintif adalah

peneroka FELDA kerana mereka merupakan anak-anak dan jiran
H
plaintif yang hidup bersama di FELDA Bukit Senggeh dan mereka
sendiri nampak plaintif mengusahakan tanah FELDA. Keterangan
plaintif di sokong oleh keterangan saksi-saksi plaintif bahawa
mereka mengesahkan aktiviti-aktiviti plaintif, iaitu plaintif mengajar
di waktu pagi dan pulang ke rumah pada lebih kurang pukul
I
12 tengah hari, seterusnya memasak. pada jam 2 petang pergi ke
A kebun untuk mengusahakan kebun. Mereka juga mengesahkan

bahawa perbelanjaan rumah tangga plaintif ditanggung oleh plaintif
dan defendan ada menanggung tetapi hanya sedikit, yang
selebihnya adalah plaintif. Berkenaan makanan pula mereka
mengesahkan mengambil dari pihak FELDA. Keterangan berkenaan
B defendan yang jarang pergi ke kebun/kalau ada pergi hanya sekadar
menghantar tetapi tidak mengusahakan
[18] Keterangan ini disokong oleh SP2 yang menyatakan bapanya

jarang datang ke kebun dan kalau datang pun defendan hanya
C tengok-tengok sekejap dalam 10 minit dan anak-anak yang buat
kerja seperti SP2 pungut sekerap dan abang menoreh getah. Begitu
juga keterangan SP 3, 4, 5 dan 6 masing-masing menyatakan
defendan ada ke kebun tetapi hanya sekadar pergi sekejap tetapi
tidak mengusahakan kebun, malahan SP6 pula mengatakan “ayah
D hanya hantar kami ke kebun, lepas itu ayah hilangkan diri tak tahu
ke mana.”
Keterangan Berkenaan Defendan Yang Gemar Melakukan

Perkara Yang Tidak Elok
E [19] Keterangan ini disokong oleh SP2 dan SP6 yang masing-
masing adalah anak-anak kandung plaintif dan defendan sudah
pasti mengetahui apa yang dilakukan oleh ayah mereka/defendan
yang suka melakukan perkara yang tidak baik. Malahan SP6 pernah
lihat dan duduk bersama-sama defendan dan melihat tingkah laku
F defendan.
Keterangan Defendan
[20] Defendan semasa memberi keterangan, mengatakan bahawa

beliau kini bekerja menoreh getah di FELDA Bukit Senggeh milik
G
isteri barunya sebelum berhenti kerja sebagai pemandu van dua
tahun dahulu. Defendan menyatakan pada mula-mula masuk
FELDA beliau yang mengerjakan tanah tersebut bersama plaintif
seperti menajak rumput dan menebas anak-anak kayu. Bila pokok
getah telah boleh ditoreh, defendan pergi menoreh getah.
H
Defendan juga mengatakan plaintif juga ikut bersama menoreh
getah.
[21] Berkenaan dengan keterangan saksi-saksi plaintif, mahkamah

berpendapat bahawa plaintif telah berjaya membuktikan
I keterangan-keterangan sokongan mereka dan keterangan mereka
semuanya konsisten. Keterangan saksi ini adalah sah menurut A

syarak berpandukan kepada al-Quran dan sunah serta ijma’ ulama’.
Allah swt berfirman di dalam Surah al-Baqarah ayat 282:
%8L ¥I¦ T $£I UP$£

B
Yang bermaksud:
Dan hendaklah kamu mengadakan dua orang saksi lelaki dari
kalangan kamu.
Allah swt berfirman di dalam Surah al-Baqarah ayat 283 C
¡- T$ ¡+ % 1¥ £ ©H% U$ $¤10 ´£
Dan janganlah kamu (wahai orang yang menjadi saksi)

menyembunyikan perkara yang dipersaksikan itu. Dan sesiapa
yang menyembunyikannya, sesungguhnya dia adalah orang berdosa D
hatinya.
Mengikut Al-Imam Al-Nawawi dalam Kitabnya ¦-%É$ ;%

$L´$ % O %4$´$ ª¦]$ « ¥ $N$£
E
Apabila dalam kes tersebut tidak ada saksi melainkan dua orang
saksi maka ketika itu ia wajib memberikan kesaksian.
[22] Plaintif juga telah mengemukakan keterangan dokumentar

yang di tanda dari P1 hingga P6 berkenaan hartanah-hartanah ini
F
dan defendan juga tidak membantah berkenaan dokumen-dokumen
ini. Bahkan defendan juga mengakui plaintif turut sama-sama
mengerjakan tanah ini.
[23] Mengenai persoalan adakah harta yang dituntut oleh plaintif

sebagai harta sepencarian itu diperolehi semasa perkahwinannya G
dengan defendan mengikut syarat-syarat yang ditentukan oleh
Hukum Syarak dan undang-undang.
[24] Fakta telah menunjukkan bahawa plaintif telah berkahwin

dengan defendan pada 7 April 1969 dan bercerai pada 7 Mac H
2003. Perceraian ini telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Rendah
Syariah Jasin. Sepanjang tempoh perkahwinan mereka telah
dikurniakan 12 orang anak. Harta-harta yang dituntut pula telah
diperolehi semasa mereka menyertai FELDA.
I
A [25] Mengenai persoalan apakah sumbangan plaintif dalam usaha

mendapatkan harta-harta ini? Adakah wujud fakta yang
menunjukkan, plaintif berusaha mendapatkan harta-harta tersebut.
Saya dapati bahawa pihak plaintif telah membuat rayuan kepada
FELDA sehingga FELDA memberi persetujuan menempatkan
B mereka sebagai anggota peneroka FELDA dan seterusnya
berusaha bersama memajukan tanah FELDA tersebut. Plaintif
mengerjakan tanah-tanah tersebut bersama-sama anak-anak. Plaintif
adalah seorang guru tadika dan beliau telah mengerjakan tanah
tersebut sekembalinya ke rumah jam 2 petang. Kemudian di
C sebelah petangnya beliau akan ke kebun mengusahakannya dan
akan kembali ke rumah apabila waktu asar. Fakta-fakta seterusnya
mengenai usaha plaintif seperti telah dijelaskan di atas tadi.
Saksi-saksi plaintif juga menyokong keterangan plaintif.
D [26] Mengenai persoalan berapakah takat sumbangan plaintif

dalam mendapatkan harta berkenaan? Mahkamah dapati bahawa
plaintif telah menyumbang usaha dan tenaga secara langsung dalam
memperolehi tanah ini, seterusnya mengusahakannya serta telah
mendidik anak-anak sehingga anak-anak berjaya melanjutkan
E pelajaran ke institusi pengajian tinggi.
[27] Namun begitu di akhir-akhir kerancakan penggulungan hujah

di antara peguam plaintif dan peguam defendan, peguam defendan
telah mendapat isyarat dan mandat daripada pelanggannya
(defendan) untuk memberikan persetujuan terhadap tuntutan
F
hartanah tersebut, iaitu defendan bersetuju memberi 1/2 bahagian
daripada 10.4 ekar di No. PM 1294 Lot No 3082 Mukim Nyalas
Daerah Jasin Melaka kepada plaintif. Dengan persetujuan tersebut
mahkamah akan membuat perintah seperti mana yang dipersetujui.
Dalam persoalan ini segala keterangan-keterangan sama ada
G
keterangan defendan dan plaintif dan saksi-saksinya masih boleh
diterima pakai kerana keterangan tersebut berkait rapat antara satu
sama lain. Ini adalah kerana pihak defendan ingin meneruskan
perbicaraan tuntutan-tuntutan plaintif yang lain.
H [28] Mengenai tuntutan plaintif terhadap hartanah di bawah
Suratan Hak Milik No. PM 1607 Lot No. 3989 di Mukim Nyalas
Daerah Jasin Melaka seluas 1123 meter persegi atau 12,087 kaki
persegi bersama sebuah rumah yang dibina semula oleh plaintif
sebanyak RM50,000 dari rumah asal FELDA. Mahkamah dapati
I bahawa rumah dan tanah itu telah diduduki sejak mereka mula
melangkah ke FELDA bersama suami pada 4 Mac 1974 lagi. A

Ini bermakna di rumah mereka itulah mereka berteduh dan
mendiami dan telah hidup sebagai pasangan suami isteri.
[29] Mahkamah dapati juga pihak plaintif berpendapat bahawa

oleh sebab ada sumbangan pihak plaintif dalam memperbaiki dan B
membesarkan rumah tersebut maka ia berhak mendapat 1/2
bahagian daripada RM50,000. Saya dapati juga pihak responden
telah menyumbangkan sebanyak RM4,000 hasil daripada wang
KWSP defendan untuk membesarkan bilik rumah tersebut maka
responden berhak juga mendapat 1/2 bahagian daripada nilai C
rumah itu.
[32] Sekiranya pihak defendan mahu mengekalkan rumah tersebut

kepadanya mahkamah berpendapat bahawa defendan hendaklah
membayar kepada plaintif sebanyak RM25,000. Begitulah
D
sebaliknya sekiranya plaintif berkehendakkan rumah tersebut maka
plaintif hendaklah membayar RM25,000 kepada defendan.
[33] Mengenai tuntutan balas pihak defendan mengenai sebuah

rumah di JA 2627, Rumah Awam Pondok Batang - defendan
menuntut supaya rumah tersebut di isytihar sebagai harta E
sepencarian kerana defendan mendakwa ia berhak mendapat
2/3 bahagian daripada harga rumah tersebut. Beliau mendakwa
rumah tersebut dibeli dalam masa perkahwinan mereka berdua.
Mereka bersama-sama menguruskan urusan pembelian di pejabat
peguam di Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka. Menurut defendan mereka F
dapat membeli rumah “corner lot” dengan harga belian sebanyak
RM27,000. Plaintif telah mengeluarkan wang KWSP sebanyak
RM10,000 manakala defendan telah mengeluarkan wang KWSP
sebanyak RM4,000. Tetapi wang RM4,000 yang telah di keluarkan
oleh defendan digunakan untuk ubahsuai dengan membina bilik G
tambahan di dalam rumah di Felda Bukit Senggeh, Jasin, Melaka
bukan diberikan kepada plaintif untuk membayar deposit rumah
tersebut.
[34] Berkenaan dengan tuntutan defendan terhadap sebuah H

rumah di JA 2627, Rumah Awam Pondok Batang, plaintif tidak
bersetuju dengan tuntutan defendan. Plaintif dalam keterangannya
mengatakan rumah ini dibeli oleh plaintif dari pemaju Pelasari Sdn.
Bhd. Plaintif pergi bersendirian ke pejabat pemaju tersebut dan
menguruskan pembelian rumah tersebut. Semasa di tanya dalam I
A soalan balas plaintif mengatakan defendan tahu tentang pembelian

rumah ini dan dia bersetuju plaintif beli kerana kata defendan itu
adalah duit plaintif. Pembelian rumah adalah menerusi pinjaman
Maybank, Jasin. Harga belian adalah sebanyak RM28,000 dan
pinjaman Bank sebanyak RM18,000. Bukti pinjaman dari Maybank
B ditandakan sebagai P14 dan P17 iaitu ”Inquiry Loan Balance”
bertarikh 14 Januari 2006 yang menunjukkan plaintif telah
membuat pinjaman sebanyak RM18,000. Mengikut penyata bank
pada tarikh 14 Januari 2006, baki bayaran adalah sebanyak
RM9,560.04. Kesemua surat menyurat pinjaman ini adalah di atas
C nama plaintif. Duit muka, plaintif membayar dengan wang KWSP
dan di campur dengan duit bekerja sebagai guru tadika serta
membuat jualan langsung serta jual kuih. Keseluruhan duit muka
berjumlah RM10,000. Bukti pembayaran duit muka ini di tandakan
P15. Walaupun resit tersebut menunjukkan RM9,700 namun
D plaintif mengatakan beliau telah mengumpul duit beliau dan
membayar RM10,000. Manakala untuk bayaran bulanan kepada
bank, plaintif membayar sebanyak RM173 sebulan dan ada masa
plaintif membayar lebih. Bukti pembayaran bulanan di lampirkan
secara kolektif dan di tanda sebagai P16. Pemilikan yang
E menunjukkan bahawa plaintif adalah pemiliknya seperti di dalam
Perakuan Hakmilik Bangunan dari Majlis Daerah Jasin yang
dilampirkan dan di tanda P13. Menurut plaintif lagi, berkenaan
dengan cukai tanah dan cukai pintu kesemuanya plaintif yang
dibayar pada tiap-tiap tahun.
F
[35] Keterangan saksi-saksi plaintif iaitu SP2, SP4, SP5 dan SP6
yang mengatakan rumah tersebut di beli oleh plaintif dan dibuat
secara pinjaman malahan SP2 menyatakan tidak ada orang lain
yang menyumbang pembeliannya melainkan plaintif sahaja.
G
[36] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa kesemua urusan pembelian
dibuat oleh plaintif. Dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan
semuanya dikemukakan oleh plaintif. Ini menunjukkan bahawa
urusan pembelian dan urusan pinjaman di buat oleh plaintif.
Bayaran kepada pihak bank di buat secara bayaran bulanan.
H
Malahan plaintif ada bertanya defendan mengenai pembelian harta
ini tetapi defendan acuh tak acuh sahaja dan menjawab ‘duit
engkau’. Ini menunjukkan defendan tidak mengambil berat dan
tidak berminat tentang pembelian harta ini. Walaupun defendan
berkata, beliau ada mengikuti plaintif ke pejabat peguam di Jalan
I
Hang Jebat untuk menandatangani Perjanjian Jual Beli, namun
keterangan ini telah dinafikan awal lagi oleh plaintif yang
mengatakan beliau pergi bersendirian. Defendan juga tidak A

membawa keterangan seorang saksi pun untuk menyokong bahawa
beliau berhak terhadap harta ini, mahupun keterangan dokumen
atau maklumat berkenaan dan apakah sumbangan serta berapakah
takat sumbangan beliau di dalam memperolehi harta ini. Saksi-saksi
yang dibawa oleh defendan iaitu SD1 hanya menerangkan tentang B
harta yang dituntut oleh plaintif, manakala SD2 tidak pasti apa
yang dituntut oleh defendan dan hanya menerangkan bahawa
harta JA 2627, Rumah Awam Pondok Batang ini dibeli semasa
mereka suami isteri. Saksi ini juga tidak membuktikan harta yang
manakah yang defendan memberi sumbangan bersama plaintif C
untuk memperolehinya. Mahkamah mendapati bahawa tuntutan
balas ini gagal dibuktikan oleh defendan dan defendan tidak
melepaskan bebannya menurut ss. 72, 73 dan 74 Enakmen
Keterangan Mahkamah Syariah (Negeri Melaka) 2002 (EKMSNM)
kerana beban pembuktian (pembuktian fakta dan memberi D
keterangan) yang perlu bagi defendan kemukakan untuk tuntutan
balasnya boleh disabitkan adalah sampai ke tahap yakin atau tahap
paling berat. Ke bawah dari tahap yakin ialah tahap ‘tidak pasti’.
Ia terbahagi kepada tiga jenis iaitu zan, syak dan waham. Zan
bermaksud sangkaan atau dalam keadaan tidak pasti tetapi lebih E
mirip kepada benar. Tahap ini masih tidak cukup untuk
mensabitkan sesuatu kes. Syak pula ialah sangkaan atau keadaan
tidak pasti di antara sabit atau tidak sabit atau tidak dapat di buat
pilihan di antara dua kerana persamaan tahap kemungkinannya.
Waham pula sangkaan atau keadaan tidak pasti yang cenderung F
kepada salah. Berdasarkan kenyataan bahawa ada kalanya zan
menepati kebenaran, maka zan yang sampai ke tahap ghalabah
Az-zan atau “berat sangka” adalah diterima dalam keterangan dan
pembuktian.
G
Kesimpulan di dalam tuntutan defendan ini defendan hendaklah
membuktikan kesnya ke tahap yakin atau sampai ke tahap berat
sangka. Kes ini berdasarkan kepada kes Hawa Embong lwn. Ahmad
Muda (1425 H) JH XVII/II di m/s 199-218 yang diputus oleh
YA Dato’ Haji Ismail bin Yahya pada 28 Rejab tahun 1424 H H
bersamaan 25 September 2003 Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi Syariah
Terengganu.
I
A [37] Di dalam kes rayuan Mat Sharie Yaakub lwn. Che Mas
Abdullah (1426 h) JH XIX/1 ms. 109-123 mahkamah juga
memutuskan pihak yang menuntut hendaklah mengemukakan
keterangan adanya perolehan dalam masa perkahwinan tersebut,
sama ada dalam bentuk tanah, rumah, kenderaan, barang kemas,
B perhiasan atau sebagainya. Adalah dihujahkan bahawa kaitan
antara perkahwinan dengan perolehan yang memungkinkan
perolehan itu terlaksana. Kaitan itu hendaklah ada kebolehterimaan.
Pihak yang menuntut memikul tugas dalam menghubungkan antara
perkahwinan dan perolehan harta yang dipohon, untuk tujuan
C mengaitkan antara perkahwinan dengan perolehan, keterangan lisan
pihak-pihak, saksi-saksi yang dipanggil, dokumen yang dikemukakan
boleh diguna untuk mengsabit atau menafikan adanya hak
sepencarian dalam harta yang dituntut.
D [38] Mahkamah juga perlu mendapat gambaran yang jelas tentang

lama dan tahap usaha dan tenaga yang dicurahkan untuk
menghasilkan harta tersebut. Melalui keterangan saksi-saksi dan
dokumen (jika tidak ada pengakuan) pihak-pihak itu sendiri,
Mahkamah dapat mengukur tahap sumbangan/usaha yang telah
E diberi oleh defendan. Mahkamah yang mendengar kes hendaklah
mengguna kuasanya menentukan tahap sumbangan/usaha yang
telah diberi untuk memfailkan harta yang dituntut.
[39] Mahkamah merujuk kepada kes Maimon Mohamad Zain lwn.

Mohammed Azmi Mohd Said (1427) JH XXI/I di ms. 43-53.
F
Di dalam kes ini diputuskan bahawa tuntutan sebuah rumah di
728, Taman Panchor Jaya ini didaftarkan atas nama plaintif.
Bayaran di buat melalui potongan gaji plaintif. Berdasarkan kepada
dokumen-dokumen yang dikemukakan, mahkamah percaya bahawa
harta atau rumah ini adalah diperolehi dari usaha plaintif sahaja.
G
Tuntutan terhadap sebuah rumah di Ustari Perdana, sebidang
tanah di Sayong dan sebuah Kereta Kancil, tiada satu pun
dokumen atau maklumat berkenaan dan tidak dinyatakan secara
jelas berserta dengan dokumen-dokumen yang berkaitan.
H [40] Dalam kes plaintif ini saya dapati pihak defendan dalam
keterangan mengatakan bahawa beliau telah menyumbangkan
tenaganya hadir dan mengikuti bersama menguruskan urusan
pembelian di Pejabat Peguam di Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka.
Sedangkan pihak plaintif menyatakan dan mempertikaikan jawapan
I
defendan yang tidak konsisten mengenai tempat menandatangani A

perjanjian jual beli sama ada di ruang berdekatan dengan Pemaju
Pelasari atau di Pejabat Peguam Jalan Hang Jebat, Melaka. Dalam
perkara ini saya tidak nampak sumbangan tersebut, kalau hanya
berkadar sekali hadir dan mengikuti bersama ke pejabat peguam
bagi menguruskan pembelian rumah tersebut. Tidak bermakna B
seseorang itu boleh mendapat harta sepencarian tersebut kerana
apa yang hendak di ambil kira ialah sumbangan yang boleh di nilai
kadarnya seperti wang ringgit, tahap usaha tenaganya, buah
fikirannya atau apa-apa sumbangan yang boleh di nilai. Apakah
sumbangannya sekali hadir boleh diambil kira? Kalaulah boleh di C
ambil kira maka saya berpendapat di manakah tanggungjawab suami
terhadap isteri dalam urusan rumah tangganya. Dalam hal ini saya
tidak nampak apa-apa bukti-bukti yang di bawa untuk menyokong
keterangan, malah saksi-saksi pun tidak ada yang menyokong
keterangan defendan. Mahkamah menganggap bahawa segala D
keterangan defendan mengenai tuntutan tersebut hanyalah sebagai
dakwaan semata-mata. Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa dakwaan
defendan adalah tidak memenuhi kehendak dan syarat dakwaan
seperti mana yang dikehendaki oleh Hukum Syarak.
E
[41] Mengikut Al-Syed al-Bakri Ibnu al-Sayed Mohamad Shatha
al-Dumyati (meninggal tahun 1300 Hijrah) di dalam kitabnya
“ ¦-%É$ ª%$ ” halaman 508-509, jilid 4 cetakan al-Maktabah
al-Taufiqiyyah Mesir ada menyebut:
F
¡¦I¥% §I$ Y¥ %, ªY ¤ &
1. Dakwaan seseorang yang mendakwa itu hendaklah terang
dan menghuraikan secara terperinci
2. Yang kena dakwa terikat dengan dakwaan

G
¡¦ «I ªO ¤0 &
3. Hendaklah ditentukan orang kena dakwa
¡¦ «I$ ¦¥ &

4. Dakwaan yang dibuat tidak bercanggah dengan dakwaan yang
H
lain
¬MD& ¬¤H% ]%0 ´ &

5. Bahawa tiap-tiap orang yang mendakwa atau kena dakwa
adalah mukallaf
I
A %<· %O1 % Â ¤¥ &

6. Bahawa tiap-tiap orang yang mendakwa dan orang yang kena
dakwa terikat dengan hukum.
Mengikut Abu Bakar Ibnu Muhammad Syata’ al-Damyaty dalam

Kitabnya Hasyiah l’aanah al-Taalibin, setahun pertama 1418/1997
B
M, Terbitan Darul Fikry, Beirut, Lebanon hal 290 ada
menyebutkan:
µ ª,L$ H£I<£ ª=£ ª 8 MJ L%, ¬¤I$ «£
C
¡,£ %,´$ $J$ % ª4µ4MJ §¥
Yang bermaksud:
Dalam dakwaan mengenai tanah dan barang yang menetap di
atasnya (rumah) disyaratkan disebutkan arahnya, tempat beradanya
D dan sempadannya pada empat hala di dalam dakwaan adalah tidak
mencukupi dengan hanya menyebut tiga hala sempadannya sahaja
jika ianya tidak diketahui melainkan dengan menyebutkan empat
hala sempadannya
[42] Mahkamah juga mendapati tuntutan tersebut tidak relevan

E kerana semua urusan pinjaman pembelian dan pembayaran dibuat
atas nama plaintif. Penglibatan defendan tidaklah mencapai tahap
yang boleh di kira di bayar sumbangan terhadap pembelian rumah
tersebut sekalipun dibuktikan perolehan rumah itu dibuat dalam
masa perkahwinan.
F
[43] Mengenai lain-lain tuntutan plaintif untuk mendapatkan
RM5,400, iaitu 1/2 bahagian daripada pajakan hartanah PM1294
Lot No 3082 - Di dalam kes ini mahkamah mendapati memang
ada sumbangan plaintif dalam memajukan dan mengusahakan tanah
G FELDA sehingga mengeluarkan hasil. Hasil yang diperolehi telah di
belanja untuk keluarga plaintif dan defendan termasuklah anak-anak
mereka. Dalam hal ini mahkamah tidak boleh menafikan peranan
yang dimainkan oleh plaintif dalam memajukan dan mengusahakan
tanah FELDA ini. Ini adalah kerana beliau berhak mendapat
H apa-apa faedah ke atas tanah tersebut.
Menurut pandangan al-Ustaz Ra’du Mifdad Mahmud al-Hamdani

seorang peguam di Negara Iraq di dalam kitab ¦8£O §%$ %}$
ms. 85, ada menyebut:
I
M1U ª¦8£O$ L$H 7%4& ª¦ 8 « %0º$ ¦8£O â=¥£ A
I, %0º$ $K â=¥£ %LIY M}$_ , % ¦, ª

¦8£ O %O ¤¥£ ;$£O$
Pasangan suami isteri adalah berhak menjadikan segala

B
perkakas atau mata benda di dalam rumah mereka sebagai
harta perkongsian bersama tanpa memandang dari siapa
sumber asalnya, ini adalah kerana akad nikah yang telah dibuat
di antara suami isteri tersebut adalah sebagai bukti wujudnya
persetujuan bersama di antara mereka berdua, maka dengan
C
ikatan perkahwinan tersebut menjadikan harta yang diperolehi
oleh mereka sebagai harta sepencarian bersama.
Merujuk kepada pandangan Dr Yusuf al-Qaradhawi di dalam

kitabnya ( §µPº$ H%Y1º$ § µD¶$£ ¦$ L£H ) ms. 138, cetakan
Maktabah Wahbah Kaherah Mesir ada menyebutkan: D
µ 1Pº %¦ £& %¦I, %Qº$ ¡K-¥ $£ H¤ 9 ¤ $
¢M¦ & ¡Q ¥ %$ %& $¤P ¡1 ª¦-É$ HL$¤$
¡0M-D£ ¢I 9, %¥MT E
Maksud kerja ialah tiap-tiap perkara yang dilakukan oleh manusia

dengan penuh tekun sama ada berbentuk fizikal ataupun idea bagi
menjanakan bahan mentah agar boleh dimanfaatkan. Sama ada
pekerja itu melakukan kerjanya itu untuk dirinya sendiri atau untuk
orang lain dalam keadaan berkongsi modal atau berkongsi dari F
sudut kepakarannya dan pengalamannya.
[44] Mahkamah juga merujuk di dalam Kitab

“ µPº$ § $ 3%¤ ” karangan Dr Abdul Sami’ al-Misriy,
halaman 10, cetakan Maktabah Wahbah Kaherah Mesir Tahun
G
1982M ada mentakrifkan
ª âE §I, £& §J %Qº$ ¡K-¥ I 8 ¤ $
H¤8¤ §T ª ©H%¥N £&ª¥H%Y1*

H
Maksud kerja ialah tiap-tiap pengorbanan yang dilakukan oleh
seorang insan sama ada berbentuk cetusan idea yang bernas
(kepintaran berfikir) atau berbentuk fizikal bagi menghasilkan
produk yang baik kepada pertumbuhan ekonomi atau menambah
baik sesuatu yang sedia ada.
I
A Berdasarkan pandangan para cendekiawan Islam di atas,

mahkamah berpendapat bahawa segala bentuk idea, pandangan atau
buah fikiran seorang isteri bagi mendapatkan mana-mana tanah
boleh dianggap sebagai harta sepencarian kerana ia dikira sebagai
kerja dan usaha yang tidak boleh dipandang remeh.
B [45] Di dalam kes ini saya dapati bahawa defendan telah
memanggil seorang kontraktor cina untuk menebang pokok getah
di tanah Lot No 3082. Pokok getah tersebut telah dijual dengan
harga RM16,000. Hasil jualan pokok getah digunakan untuk
mengupah menanam semula kelapa sawit dan membuat pagar.
C Jumlah yang dikeluarkan oleh defendan untuk tujuan tersebut ialah
RM10,000. Manakala RM2,000 di bahagikan kepada plaintif.
Wang yang selebihnya sebanyak RM4,000 telah digunakan untuk
perbelanjaan harian dan persekolahan anak-anak yang begitu ramai
iaitu 12 orang. Perbelanjaan ini berlaku sekitar tahun 1998, 1999,
D
2000 dan 2001. Segala tanggungan defendan kepada anak-anak
tidak di catit dan direkodkan sebagaimana yang dilakukan oleh
Pegawai Akauntan. Defendan cuma seorang peneroka biasa sahaja.
Perbelanjaan tersebut habis begitu sahaja. Namun begitu dalam
membuat pertimbangan terhadap sumbangan-sumbangan secara
E
langsung ke atas tanah tersebut, mahkamah akan cuba melihat
sejauh manakah, hasil wang tersebut digunakan oleh defendan.
Adakah hasil wang ini benar-benar digunakan oleh defendan untuk
kegunaan peribadinya atau keluarga atau digunakan untuk
mengawal selia tanah FELDA. Ini adalah bertujuan untuk
F
mendapatkan gambaran terhadap perbelanjaan defendan
sebenarnya.
[46] Mahkamah dapati pada sekitar April 2003 hingga tahun 2004
defendan ada membuat pajakan selama dua tahun kepada satu
G Kontraktor Cina pada kadar RM5,000 setahun. Jumlah pajak
selama dua tahun adalah sebanyak RM10,000. Mengikut defendan
bahawa beliau telah memanggil satu Kontraktor Cina untuk
membersihkan kebun tersebut dengan mencuba memberi kontrak
kepada kontraktor Cina tersebut selama lima tahun mulai 2003
H hingga 2008 bagi tujuan untuk memetik buah kelapa sawit,
membuang dahan-dahan kelapa sawit, mengupah membuat jalan
untuk laluan lori untuk mengangkut buah kelapa sawit. Defendan
mengaku telah menerima bayaran Kontraktor Cina sebanyak
RM6,500. Akan tetapi beliau mengubah fikirannya dengan alasan
I beliau menjangkakan akan mendapat keuntungan tetapi setelah
dikira maka ia mendatangkan kerugian.
[47] Akhirnya defendan bertekad mengambil semula tanah A

tersebut daripada pajakan Cina. Akibatnya beliau dikenakan
membayar ganti rugi kepada Cina tersebut di atas pembatalan
kontrak itu.
Pembayaran balik dibuat secara beransur-ansur tiap-tiap bulan B

sebanyak RM300. Di dalam pada itu dan ketika itu pihak FELDA
telah mengambil alih tanah tersebut dan FELDA telah membayar
balik kepada kontrak Cina dengan bayaran sebanyak RM5,400.
Pihak FELDA telah memotong RM300 tiap-tiap bulan melalui
wang sara hidup defendan. Setakat ini baki yang masih tinggal C
ialah RM800.
Bayaran ansuran bulanan ini dijangka tamat beberapa bulan lagi,

tetapi menurut defendan lagi pihak FELDA memberhentikan
sementara pembayaran itu dan sekiranya ada hasil maka FELDA
D
akan menyelesaikan baki tersebut. Daripada kenyataan defendan,
mahkamah berpendapat oleh sebab pihak defendan telah
membentangkan penyata pendapatan dan perbelanjaannya termasuk
memberi wang sebanyak RM2,000 kepada isterinya, serta
selebihnya untuk menyara rumah tangga dan anak-anaknya serta
E
digunakan untuk membaja dan membersihkan tanah FELDA, maka
wang tersebut telah habis digunakan untuk tujuan tersebut.
Apakah ada lagi wang yang diterima dari kontraktor Cina sebanyak
RM6,5000 hasil daripada pajakan tanah tersebut yang digunakan
untuk membuat pembayaran balik kepada kontraktor Cina. Ini
F
bermakna wang itu digunakan balik untuk membayar pampasan dan
lain-lain perbelanjaan. Oleh itu tuntutan plaintif untuk mendapatkan
1/2 bahagian daripada pajakan tersebut adalah tidak relevan dan
tidak munasabah kerana wang tersebut digunakan untuk tujuan
tersebut.
G
[48] Mengenai tuntutan plaintif untuk mendapatkan 1/2 bahagian
bayaran sara hidup yang dibayar oleh FELDA kepada defendan
sebanyak RM750 sebulan bermula bulan Mei 2004 sehingga bulan
Mei 2007 - Mahkamah berpendapat mengikut keterangan defendan
bahawa tuntutan plaintif untuk 1/2 bahagian daripada bayaran sara H
hidup adalah setelah plaintif dan defendan bercerai. Mengikut
defendan bahawa pada tarikh tersebut beliau mengakui ada
menerima wang sara hidup yang diberikan oleh FELDA adalah
sebanyak RM750.
I
A Namun begitu wang tersebut digunakan untuk membayar pelbagai

tanggungan hutang. Antaranya:
a) Belanja untuk diri Defendan setiap bulan - RM200
b) Bayar Api/Air - RM065

B
c) Ansuran kereta - RM232
d) Duit minyak sebulan - RM300
e) Belanja nafkah Salwa dan Fatimah - RM250

C
(Salwa RM200 + Fatimah RM50)
RM1,047
[49] Mahkamah berpendapat bahawa perbelanjaan defendan

D adalah melebihi pendapatan. Mahkamah dapati pihak defendan di
samping mendapat wang sara hidup daripada FELDA beliau telah
bekerja menoreh getah. Pendapatan sebulan menoreh getah ialah
lebih kurang RM600 sebulan. Ini bermakna jika dicampur
pendapatan menoreh dengan wang sara hidup menjadikan jumlah
E (RM600 + RM750) RM1,350 sebulan. Maka jika jumlah
pendapatan defendan sebanyak RM1,350 di tolak dengan
perbelanjaan sebanyak RM1,047 maka bakinya hanya RM303 dan
baki RM303 ini jika ditolak dengan belanja nafkah anak Salwa,
Fatimah dan lain-lain lagi maka sudah tentu bakinya tidak
F seberapa. Memandangkan kepada keadaan perbelanjaan ini
mahkamah tidak nampak apa perlunya pihak plaintif menuntut 1/2
bahagian daripada wang sara hidup tersebut kerana kesemua wang
itu dibelanja untuk keperluan-keperluan tersebut.
[50] Mengenai tuntutan plaintif untuk mendapatkan separuh lagi

G
bayaran hasil yang dibayar oleh FELDA kepada defendan bermula
dari bulan Jun 2007 hingga Perintah Harta Sepencarian di
keluarkan - Menurut keterangan defendan pada Jun 2007 beliau
telah berkahwin lain dengan sorang janda. Apabila berkahwin
defendan telah mengeluarkan perbelanjaan untuk keperluan isteri
H
barunya dan anak tirinya adalah sebanyak RM400. Ini bermakna
perbelanjaan defendan telah meningkat kepada (1,047 + 400)
RM1,447 sebulan sedangkan pendapatan defendan banyak
RM1,350 sebulan. Ini menunjukkan bahawa perbelanjaannya
(- RM97 sebulan) adalah negatif. Namun begitu defendan berusaha
I
untuk menambah pendapatannya dengan mengambil upah di
sebelah petang dengan meracun, petik kelapa sawit.
[51] Mengikut keterangan plaintif pula mulai Jun 2007 FELDA A

telah membayar hasil kepada defendan sebanyak RM1,150 sebulan.
Mahkamah dapati bahawa kesemua wang hasil yang di bayar oleh
FELDA digunakan sepenuhnya oleh defendan untuk perbelanjaan
seperti mana di atas.
B
[52] Di dalam semua tuntutan plaintif bermula dari tuntutan untuk
mendapatkan 1/2 bahagian daripada hasil pajakan hartanah
PM 294, Lot No 3082 sebanyak RM5,400, kemudian tuntutan
untuk mendapatkan 1/2 bayaran sara diri yang dibayar oleh
FELDA kepada defendan sebanyak RM750 sebulan bermula Mei C
2004 hingga bulan Mei 2007, seterusnya menuntut 1/2 bayaran
hasil yang dibayar oleh FELDA kepada defendan bermula dari
bulan Jun 2007 hingga perintah harta sepencarian dikeluarkan -
mahkamah berpendapat bahawa adalah tidak adil sekiranya pihak
plaintif membuat tuntutan seperti di atas kepada defendan kerana D
pihak defendan telah bersetuju memberikan 1/2 bahagian daripada
tanah rancangan FELDA tersebut kepada plaintif. Ini adalah
kerana sekiranya mahkamah benarkan tuntutan tersebut bermakna
pihak plaintif mendapat lebihan daripada sepatutnya. Sedangkan
defendan dapat membuktikan bahawa semua wang yang diterima E
telah dibelanjakan habis untuk membayar kembali hutang FELDA
dan mengawal selia tanah FELDA tersebut serta menanggung
keperluan-keperluan defendan termasuk menanggung nafkah
anak-anak plaintif dan defendan serta isteri baru dan anak tirinya.
F
[53] Di atas keterangan-keterangan yang telah diberikan oleh
plaintif dan defendan serta saksi-saksi plaintif dan defendan dan
hujahan peguam plaintif dan defendan yang bijaksana maka saya
amat berpuas hati bahawa kedua-duanya berhak mendapat apa
yang dituntut berdasarkan bukti-bukti yang telah ditunjukkan.
G
Maka dengan ini mahkamah perintahkan seperti berikut:
Perintah
1. Mahkamah perintahkan dan isytiharkan bahawa harta-harta

yang dituntut iaitu: H
a. Sebidang Hartanah di bawah suratan Hak milik No. PM

1294, Lot No. 3082, Mukim Nyalas, Daerah Jasin Melaka
seluas 4,217 hektar atau 10.4 ekar.
b. Sebidang Hartanah di bawah suratan Hak milik No. PM I

1607 Lot No 3989 Mukim Nyalas, Daerah Jasin Melaka
seluas 1123 meter persegi atau 12,087 kaki persegi
A bersama sebuah rumah yang di bina semula oleh plaintif

sebanyak RM50,000 dari rumah asal FELDA adalah
diisytiharkan sebagai harta-harta sepencarian di antara
plaintif dan defendan.
B 2. Mahkamah perintahkan sebidang tanah di No. PM 1294, Lot

No. 3082 Mukim Nyalas Daerah Jasin Melaka dibahagikan
dua. 1/2 bahagian atau 5.2 ekar di serahkan dan diletak hak
milik di atas nama plaintif Hanipah binti Mohd Nor dan 1/2
bahagian lagi atau 5.2 ekar di serahkan dan diletak Hak milik
C atas nama defendan Baharom bin Aman @ Abd Rahman.
3. Mahkamah perintahkan sebidang Hartanah Sebidang Hartanah

di bawah suratan Hak milik No. PM 1607 Lot No 3989
Mukim Nyalas, Daerah Jasin Melaka seluas 1123 meter persegi
atau 12,087 kaki persegi bersama sebuah rumah yang di bina
D
semula oleh plaintif yang dinilai sebanyak RM50,000 dari
rumah asal FELDA di bahagi dua mengikut nilaian iaitu plaintif
mendapat nilai RM25,000 dan defendan mendapat nilaian
RM25,000.
E Sekiranya plaintif berkehendakkan rumah tersebut maka plaintif
hendaklah membayar RM25,000 kepada defendan, begitulah
sebaliknya.
4. Mahkamah perintahkan pihak-pihak berkuasa hendaklah

F melaksanakan perintah tersebut dengan memasukkan dan
meletak hak ke atas tanah dan rumah tersebut seperti mana
yang di perintahkan.
5. Mahkamah menolak lain-lain tuntutan plaintif untuk

mendapatkan 1/2 bahagian daripada wang pajakan sebanyak
G
RM5,400 dan 1/2 bahagian daripada bayaran sara diri
defendan mulai bulan Mei 2004 hingga Mei 2007 dan 1/2
bahagian bayaran hasil yang dibayar oleh FELDA kepada
defendan mulai bulan Jun 2007 sehingga perintah tuntutan
harta sepencarian diputuskan.
H
6. Mahkamah menolak tuntutan defendan untuk mengisytiharkan
dan mendapatkan 2/3 bahagian daripada rumah dan tanah di
JA 2627 Rumah Awam Pondok Batang, Asahan Melaka
sebagai harta sepencarian.
I
7. Kos ditanggung oleh pihak masing-masing.

CLJSYA 2011 1 85 Puukm1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CLJSYA 2011 1 85 Puukm1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CLJSYA 2011 1 85 Puukm1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[2011] 1 CLJ (Sya) Hanipah Mohd Nor v.

A HANIPAH MOHD NOR

C MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY: Distribution - House and land -

The plaintiff and the defendant were settlers in a Felda land

Held (allowing plaintiff’s claim partly; disallowing A

(4) House JA 2627 was purchased by the plaintiff for RM28,000.

A the upkeep of Lot 3082. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's

(6) As to the plaintiff's claim for a half-share of the RM750

Headnotes in Bahasa Malaysia

Plaintif dan defendan adalah peneroka di Rancangan Tanah Felda

menunjukkan bahawa Lot 3082, pada suatu ketika telah dipajakkan A

Diputuskan (membenarkan sebahagian tuntutan plaintif;

(2) Plaintif bukan sahaja telah berusaha supaya pihak-pihak

C (5) Fakta menunjukkan bahawa sebanyak RM2,000 dari RM5,400

(6) Mengenai tuntutan plaintiff untuk mendapatkan separuh

Case(s) referred to:

Legislation referred to:

Other source(s) referred to: A

For the plaintiff - Rosfinah; M/s Rosfinah & Co B

Reported and translated by Wan Sharif Wan Ahmad

[2] The court in this case is empowered to hear, adjudicate and

(iv) the division of, or claims to, harta sepencarian; G

[3] The court too is empowered with jurisdiction to hear and

B [5] By the evidence and the arguments adduced, the court is of

D (iii) The extent of their respective contributions.

(a) the extent of the contributions made by each party in money,

(c) the need of the minor children of the marriage, if any,

“harta sepencarian” means property jointly acquired by

[8] The provision of s. 122 of the Islamic Family Law (State of A

Firstly: property as acquired by husband and wife jointly and B

Secondly: property as acquired by the husband and wife

Thirdly: property that belonged to one party before the

[9] In the Kitab al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siasah al Sya’iyyah,

«£ ¢M¦ ª% Û%E$I¥ ¡, %M-1´ %%M-1* ¤ % I

A [10] In the Kitab Bughyah al-Mustarsyidin, 1998 publication by

[11] In the present case, the property, according to the plaintiff,

[13] During cross-examination by the defendant’s counsel, the

[14] As to the defendant’s welfare, the plaintiff in her evidence

A evidence that she had taken a loan of RM2000 from the

Evidence of Plaintiff’s Witnesses

[16] PW1 in his evidence had tendered a document, a Land

adverts to the process by which an ex-wife gets registered as A

[17] The plaintiff’s children and neighbours, PW2, PW3, PW4, C

Evidence Of The Defendant Not Going To The Holding

Evidence As To Defendant’s Disposition to Engage in

[19] This evidence was supported by PW2 and PW6. They

A The Defendant’s Evidence

[21] On the evidence of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the court is of

and call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses

¡- T$ ¡+ % 1¥ £ ©H% U$ $¤10 ´£

According to Imam Nawawi in his Kitab ¦-%É$ ;% 

[22] The plaintiff had also adduced documentary evidence

[23] The next question is whether the property claimed to be

[25] As to the plaintiff’s contribution in acquiring the said

[26] As to the extent of the plaintiff’s contribution in acquiring

[28] As to the plaintiff’s claim on the property known as

A some RM50,000 built by the plaintiff out of the old house

«£ ¢M¦ ª% Û%E$I¥ ¡, %M-1´ %%M-1* ¤ % I

¡- T$ ¡+ % 1¥ £ ©H% U$ $¤10 ´£

According to Imam Nawawi in his Kitab ¦-%É$ ;%

¡¦I¥% §I$ Y¥ %, ªY ¤ &

¡¦ «I ªO ¤0 &

¬MD& ¬¤H% ]%0 ´ &

% ¡¦ «I$ ¤¥ & A

%<· %O1 % ¤¥ &

H¤8¤ §T ª ©H%¥N £&ª¥H%Y1*

¦8£O$ §$I0 § ¤¤¥ % $ L¤ 8 & uJ £

%8L ¥I¦ T $£I UP$£

¡- T$ ¡+ % 1¥ £ ©H% U$ $¤10 ´£