Gugatan terhadap Akta Pemisahan dan Pembagian Harta Warisan yang di Tanda Tangani Tidak dengan Keseluruhan Ahli Waris (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Medan Nomor 47/ PDT / 2024 /PT Mdn)

Abstract

In the Medan High Court Decision Number 47/PDT/2024/PT Mdn, one of the deeds of separation and distribution of inheritance issued by a Notary was not signed by all heirs. Based on this, the study aims to determine the binding force of a notarial deed concerning inheritance and the distribution of the estate carried out without the consent of all heirs, the legal responsibility of the notary due to the annulment of the notarial deed regarding inheritance and the distribution of the estate made without the approval of all heirs, and the analysis of the considerations and decisions of the judge related to the notarial deed regarding inheritance and the distribution of the estate carried out without the consent of all heirs based on the Medan High Court Decision Number 47/Pd/2024/PT Mdn. This research employs a normative juridical legal research method with a descriptive analytical nature. Data analysis in this study uses a qualitative method. The data sources in this study are secondary data. Data collection techniques are conducted through library research. The data collection tool is document study, and data analysis is performed qualitatively using deductive reasoning. The results of the study indicate that the deed violates Article 1320 of the Civil Code, which regulates the validity requirements of an agreement, and if the objective element is violated, the notarial deed is considered null and void by law. In cases where the notarial deed is annulled by the court without causing harm to the interested parties, the notary cannot be sued for damages, although the loss of reputation is in accordance with the Civil Code Articles 852, 854, 850, 853 (1), and 858. The Deed of Separation and Distribution of Inheritance Number 41 of 2000 dated August 22, 2000, based on the articles mentioned above, is declared to have no legal force because it did not involve all heirs and contradicts the objective conditions of an agreement as stated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code. In the Medan High Court Decision Number 47/Pdt/2024/PT Mdn, the notary is not held accountable for the losses arising from the deed he made because the fault lies in the objective element of the agreement and there is no material loss to the plaintiff.