Analisis terhadap Perkara Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Atas Harta Warisan Berupa Tanah yang Belum Dibagi Tetapi Sudah Dibalik Nama Kepada Ahli Waris Tertentu (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta)

In the case of an analysis of cases of unlawful acts on inheritance in the form of land that has not been divided but has been reversed to certain heirs, this study aims to determine the judge's judgment in determining the evidentiary case of acts against the law on inheritance in the form of land that has not been distributed but has already been distributed. transfer the name to the heirs and to find out the judge determines the case decision against the law on inheritance in the form of land that has not been distributed but has returned the name to a certain heir that has been proven. This study uses a normative approach, because in this study the principles of law, legal principles for the Legal Unlawful Property Act on Land that have not been divided but have been reversed to certain heirs. This type of descriptive research is to illustrate clearly the Case Against Legal Against Inheritance in the Form of Land that has not been divided but has been reversed on the name of a specific heir. The results of the research show that in this case the transfer of rights from the land of SHM No. 463 / Jajar is Rina Dwi Asfricani Handayani, SH (Defendant I) and Drs. Sanjaya Wisnu Martana (Defendant II). The name Jenny Tri Purnaningsih (Plaintiff) was not included in the transfer of land rights, so the plaintiff felt aggrieved then filed a lawsuit to the District Court. Judge's consideration in determining the proof of a case against the law of inheritance in the form of land that has not been distributed but has been renamed to certain heirs is the main issue in this case, it is proven that the Plaintiff (Jenny Tri Purnaningsih) is the biological child of Mr. Soegiman, BE with Mrs. Wismiarsi as stated in the birth certificate no. 429 / X / 22/1987 issued by the Head of the Banyumas Kalibagor Civil Registry Office on October 2, 1987. Based on judges' considerations and the laws and regulations relating to this case, they stated in their decision that the Plaintiff's claim was granted in part. That the Defendant I's act of controlling the object of dispute in the form of land is an act that violates the law so as to punish the defendant for submitting a portion of the object of dispute to the Plaintiff