SHARIAsource

The cassation applicants sought to challenge Decision: 0328/Pdt.G/2012/ PA.Btl. of the Bantul Religious Court (and Decision: 05/Pdt.G/2013/ PTA.Yk. of the Yogyakarta High Religious Court) on the grounds that the lower courts had erred in their application of the law. More specifically, the cassation applicants submitted that:

1. they could provide documentary evidence proving that the cassation respondents had indeed removed the security over the deed of title of a property belonging to a Prof Dr Kuswandi and replaced it with the deed of title belonging to the property of the second cassation applicant;
2. the Yogyakarta High Religious Court had failed to refer to the interlocutory decision of the Yogyakarta High Religious Court (21 March 2013), which painted a clear picture of the status of the case, as well as the fact that the cassation respondents had not proven what the Yogyakarta High Religious Court had directed them to;
3. the Yogyakarta High Religious Court had incorrectly recorded evidence produced by the cassation respondents;
4. the first and second cassation respondents had tied the cassation applicants to a debt of IDR 1.5 billion; and
5. one of the conditions of a mortgage is a power of attorney over that mortgage, and this had been omitted, rendering the mortgage null and void.

On the facts, the Supreme Court could not accept these reasons for cassation and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.