Gala, also geunala (Malay gadai), was the indigenous pledge of land in Atjeh — chiefly of rice fields — and, after mawaih, the most frequently occurring form of right in land recorded by D. W. N. de Boer.
Occasion
The gala was the form chosen when a man needed money, but it provided above all for those cases in which he had nothing left but his land with which to satisfy debts already contracted.
Difference from Western pledge
The gala differed from the Western law of pledge in that, after the expiry of the fixed term of redemption, the pledged object remained entirely in the hands of the pledgee, who could not merely sell it in order to recover the pledge debt out of the proceeds, with an obligation to restore the surplus to the pledgor: the whole of the pledge fell to him.
Conflict with the Quranic principle
The Atjehnese adat on this point likewise conflicted with the principles laid down in the Qoran. C. Snouck Hurgronje, quoted from De Atjehers, Vol. I, p. 314, wrote: “De menschlievende maar onpractische leer der Moslimsche wet, dat de pandnemer uit het pand geen enkel voordeel mag trekken behalve de zekerheid van het terugverkrijgen der door hem ter leen gegeven waarde, wordt in Atjeh zoo min als elders nageleefd: de gala-contracten worden geheel door de adat beheerscht” — the humane but impractical doctrine of Muslim law, that the pledgee may draw no advantage whatever from the pledge beyond the security of recovering the value he has lent, is as little observed in Atjeh as elsewhere: the gala contracts are governed wholly by the adat.
Term of redemption
The term of redemption — teuboih, Malay tebus — was fixed by contract or by oral agreement in the presence of witnesses. The fixing of a minimum duration of the contract sometimes occurred, namely where the pledgee intended to make the ground more remunerative through better irrigation or other improvements and to spend money on them, in which case it was of importance to him to have some certainty as to the duration of his enjoyment of the land.
There was opportunity for redemption only once a year, namely between the harvest (keumeukoh) and the first working of the ground (meu’oeë) of the following season.
Sub-pledge
Pledging by the pledgee to third parties — sub-pledge, the giving in achterpand — was possible, but only on condition, though this was little adhered to, that the sub-pledge should be annually redeemable.
Amount and its growth
The pledge sum normally amounted in the first instance to half the sale value, but could gradually be raised by repeated further borrowing to the point where the sale value was practically reached, in which case redemption generally never took place at all.
It was therefore “niet zeldzaam, dat een verpand veld zoo lang in de handen eener familie blijft” — not rare that a pledged field remains so long in the hands of one family (De Atjehers, Vol. I, p. 315) — “dat deze het allengs als haar eigendom gaat beschouwen en te goeder trouw den oorsprong vergeet. Dan ontstaan langdurige processen tusschen de erfgenamen der oorspronkelijke eigenaars en die der geldschieters” — that the family gradually comes to regard it as its own property and in good faith forgets the origin; whereupon lengthy lawsuits arise between the heirs of the original owners and those of the money-lenders. With that in view, the pledge contract was concluded with the same solemnity as contracts of sale having land for their object (De Atjehers, Vol. I, p. 315).
Immediate re-taking in deelbouw
It was often seen, De Boer wrote, that ground given in pledge by a man to his creditor or money-lender was nevertheless worked again by himself in the very next season — that is, that he took the pledged ground straight back in deelbouw. The pledgor did this not only to retain a source of income but also so as not to break at once and entirely the bond with land alienated, after all, for half its sale value, hoping to be able in time to redeem the debt resting upon it.
Rarity of outright sale of rice fields
As regards rice fields there was the further consideration that complete alienation was accounted a disgrace, wherefore sale (poebléë) of rice fields hardly occurred at all. Snouck Hurgronje, in De Atjehers, Vol. I, p. 312, wrote that although the sale of land in Atjeh could not be called exactly rare, “geldt hij, die zijn geerfde rijstveld geheel of gedeeltelijk verkoopt in de publieke opinie als een verkwister” — he who sells his inherited rice field wholly or in part passes in public opinion for a spendthrift; peupia oemòng, “the breaking up of one’s rice field,” is the name given to that reprehensible manner of proceeding, for thereby a man ruins the pangoeléé hareukat, the “master of all breadwinning.”
The neighbour’s right of preference
Sale might not take place without the owners of adjoining land having been informed of the intention; these neighbours had, on an equal bid with third parties, the right of preference. De Boer referred to De Atjehers, Vol. I, p. 106, and to Adatrecht, p. 202. This nabuurrecht (neighbour’s right) had its ground, he suggested with due caution, most probably in the fact that it is also the neighbours who are summoned as principal witnesses in lawsuits, and that it is thought equitable that against this burden there should stand a privilege for them.
See Also
Source
Het recht op den grond in Atjeh, by D. W. N. de Boer, dated Scheveningen, November 1931, pp. 59-80. Offprint DLP-141, Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, ‘s-Gravenhage; Bibliotheek KITLV accession 0060 4460 60 081470 428.