Pembatalan Akta Jual Beli Tanah Atas Dasar Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Denpasar Nomor 63/PDT/2020/PT.DPS)

Abstract

The background to the writing of this thesis was the Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 619/2012 dated 04 December 2012 in the Sukawati area, Gianyar Regency where the Seller as Plaintiff I stated that he never knew the Buyer as Defendant II and was never present together with Defendant II to sign the Deed of Sale. Purchase before PPAT as Defendant III. Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 619/2012 was then used to change the name to the Gianyar Regency Land Office to the name of Defendant II. Based on this background, the author raises the issue of the validity of the Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 619/2012 according to the considerations of the panel of judges in canceling the PPAT Deed, what are the legal consequences of the Deed of Sale and Purchase which is canceled by the Court and what is the responsibility of the PPAT regarding the Deed of Sale and Purchase which is canceled by the Court because there are elements of unlawful acts. This research uses a normative juridical approach method, with the data used is secondary data, namely data that supports information or supports the completeness of Primary Data obtained from libraries and the author's personal library collection carried out by means of library or literature studies. Data analysis used normative analysis, that is, the collected data is expressed in the form of a logical and systematic description, then analyzed to obtain clarity in solving the problem, then conclusions are drawn deductively, namely from general matters to specific matters. Based on the results of the research, it can be seen that the validity of the Deed of Sale and Purchase Number 619/2012 is considered to be legally flawed in subjective terms because of fraud or engineering fraud, mistakes, lies or deception is related to to whom the sale and purchase transaction of the disputed object should be carried out. The result was that the transfer of the Certificate of Ownership Number 2636/Sukawati Village was declared invalid and did not have binding legal force, so in this case the Plaintiffs were still the legal owners of the disputed object.