Federal Supreme Court Judgment on Property Ownership and Extinguishment of Water Easement Rights

United Arab Emirates - The Federal Supreme Court

Hearing on Wednesday, 14 October 2026

Presided over by Judge Jumaa Ibrahim Mohamed Al-Otaibi, President of the Circuit,
and Membership of Judges Al-Hassan bin Al-Arabi Faydi and Al-Tayeb Abdul Ghafoor Abdul Wahab.

Appeal No. 473 of 2026 Civil

Legal Principles

(1, 2) Islamic Sharia: "Rules of Islamic Sharia on Property Rights". Real Rights: "Property Right: Elements and Scope of Property Rights and Grounds for Acquiring Real Estate Ownership".

(1) Right of Ownership: Absolute authority of the owner to dispose of their property in essence, usufruct, and exploitation. Scope: Encompasses the essential elements of the property and whatever is above the land and beneath it, upwards and downwards, to the useful extent of enjoyment, unless the law or agreement provides otherwise. Exception: Expropriation for public benefit in return for just compensation according to the provisions of the law.

(2) Grounds for Acquiring Ownership: Nature. Transfer of ownership and real property rights is contingent upon registration in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation. Rationale: Preventing corruption and preventing encroachment upon real estate. In the event of a dispute over the ownership of real estate, the possessor in whose name the property is registered is considered the person holding physical possession, unless their possession is defective. Possession: Retains its character and preserves its origin unless proven otherwise.

(3-7) Real Rights: "Rights Derived from Ownership: Right of Easement: Creation, Sources of Acquisition, Restrictions on Use, Adjustment of the Burden of Easement, Relocation, and Effect of Subdivision of Real Estate" "Right of Drinking and Irrigation: Restrictions and Forfeiture of Drinking Rights". Possession: "Intention of Possession and Its Presumptions". Court: "Trial Court: Its Authority in Understanding the Facts of the Case and Evaluating Evidence".

(3) Right of Easement: A real right that limits the utility of a real estate property for the benefit of another real estate property owned by another person, such as right of way, watercourse, drainage, and irrigation/drinking rights. It may be established over public property provided it does not conflict with the purpose for which such property is dedicated. Sources: Legal disposition, inheritance, statutory provision, and prescription in visible easements. If its illegitimacy is established, its harm must be removed regardless of how long it has existed, and the person granting permission to use an easement on their property may revoke such permission whenever they wish.

(4) Exercising the Right of Easement: A right for the owner of the dominant tenement within legitimate boundaries while taking the least harmful means, with the duty of maintenance without increasing the burden of the easement. Modification: Permissible for the court for fair compensation where new necessities arise. Diminishing it, making it more onerous, or altering the existing status: Impermissible. The owner of the servient tenement may request relocating the easement to another location within the same tenement or elsewhere if the original location becomes onerous or an obstacle to improvements, provided its use in the new location remains equally easy. Subdivision of the dominant tenement: The right remains due to each part unless this increases the burden on the servient tenement, and the owner of the servient tenement may request termination of the right regarding the remaining parts.

(5) Right of Drinking (Irrigation): Nature: The turn of using water for irrigating land or plantations. Its establishment for a third party in the owner's land: Effect: The owner is prohibited from obstructing it unless it was purely permissive. The license of the landowner where the water source is located to stop pumping water to the other party when the other party dispenses with the water and relies on an alternative source.

(6) Authority to Understand Facts: Discretion in understanding the factual reality of the lawsuit, weighing evidence, presumptions, and expert reports, and balancing among them, falls within the unreviewable discretion of the trial court, provided its judgment is founded on sound and sufficient grounds. It is not obligated to respond individually to every plea or argument raised by the litigants so long as its conviction contains an implicit rebuttal thereof.

(7) The conclusion of the contested judgment correctly holding that the easement right has been extinguished due to the existence of multiple water sources on site for the appellant's farm, and that the elements of liability were not established against the respondents. Consequently, the plea alleging error in applying and interpreting the law amounts to a mere substantive argument against the trial court's authority in understanding facts and weighing evidence, which must be rejected.

(Appeal No. 473 of 2026 Civil, Session 14/10/2026)

1- It is established under the noble provisions of Islamic Sharia and statutory law alike that the right of ownership is the owner's absolute authority to dispose of their property in essence, benefit, and exploitation. The owner of the property alone has the right to enjoy the property, its proceeds, fruits, and yield, and to dispose of its substance through all legally permissible dispositions. Furthermore, the owner of a thing owns what is considered its essential elements such that it cannot be severed from it without perishing, spoiling, or altering; and whoever owns land owns what is above it and what is below it to the useful extent of enjoyment upwards and downwards, unless the law provides or an agreement stipulates otherwise. No one's property may be taken without a lawful cause, and expropriation may only occur for public benefit in exchange for just compensation and according to the provisions of the law.

2- It is established that the grounds for acquiring real estate ownership are defined as inheritance, estate, contract, possession, preemption, warranty, bequest, and accession rules. Real property ownership and other real estate property rights are not transferred between contracting parties and towards third parties except through registration in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation, to prevent corruption and prohibit encroachment on real estate. If multiple persons dispute the ownership of real estate, the possessor in whose name the property is registered is provisionally considered to hold physical possession,

unless it is proven that such possession was obtained through defective means; and possession preserves the character it commenced with at the time of its acquisition unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

3- It is established that an action regarding an easement right concerns the confirmation of a real right over real property for the benefit of third parties and for the benefit of another property, such as right of way, watercourse, drainage, and drinking/irrigation. An easement is a real right that limits the utility of a tenement for the benefit of another tenement owned by another person, and an easement may be encumbered upon public property if it does not conflict with the use designated for such property. An easement is acquired through legal disposition, inheritance, or statutory provision, and visible easements, including the right of way, watercourse, and drainage, are acquired by prescription, unless the right is proven to be unlawful, in which case its harm must be removed regardless of how long it has existed. Whoever permits the use of an easement on real property owned by them may revoke their permission at any time.

4- It is established that the owner of the dominant tenement has the right to exercise their easement within lawful boundaries and to undertake what is necessary for its use and maintenance without increasing the burden of the easement, and must exercise this right in a manner that causes the least possible harm. If new needs arise from the dominant tenement that would increase the burden of the easement, the court may, after balancing the interests of both parties, order an adjustment of the easement as necessitated by the need to address that increase, against fair compensation. The owner of the servient tenement may not perform any act leading to diminishing the use of the easement or rendering it more burdensome, nor may they in particular alter the existing condition or substitute another location for the location originally designated for exercising the easement. If the location originally designated for exercising the easement has become burdensome or an obstacle to carrying out improvements on the servient tenement, the owner of that tenement may request transferring the easement to another location within the same tenement or to another property owned by them or owned by a third party if the third party agrees, provided that the use of the easement in its new location is as convenient for the owner of the dominant tenement as it was in its previous state. If the dominant tenement is partitioned, the right of easement remains due to each part thereof, provided this does not increase the burden on the servient tenement; and if the easement benefits only some of these parts, the owner of the servient tenement may demand the termination of the easement right regarding the remaining parts.

5- It is established that the right of drinking is the turn of using water for irrigating land or plantations. If the right of drinking and irrigation is established for someone in land owned by another, the owner may not prevent them from it unless the act was an act of pure tolerance and indulgence. The owner of the tenement containing the water source may stop pumping water to the other party when the latter dispenses with it through other water sources.

6- It is established in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court that the trial court has full authority to deduce and comprehend the facts of the case and evaluate the evidence of proof, including documentary evidence consisting of official or customary instruments, presumptions, and expert reports, with no appellate supervision over it so long as it bases its determination on sound and sufficient reasons to sustain it after taking into consideration all surrounding circumstances. Furthermore, it is not obligated to pursue the parties in their various arguments and lines of defense or respond independently to every assertion or defense they raise, whenever establishing the truth it accepted and proved contains the implicit response that invalidates such assertions and arguments.

7- Accordingly, where the contested judgment, upholding the first-instance judgment that dismissed the appellant's claim, reached a correct conclusion finding that the easement right had been extinguished due to the existence of multiple water sources on site for the appellant's farm, and due to the failure to establish the elements of liability against the respondents, the appellant's grievance as the owner of the dominant tenement amounts to no more than substantive argument concerning the trial court's authority in understanding facts, weighing evidence, and assessing the existence of the material legal fact and entitlement to the easement between the dominant and servient tenements. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed in all its grounds for lacking support in noble Islamic Sharia and statutory law.

In view of the foregoing:

The Court

Whereas the facts of the case—to the extent necessary for clarification—are summarized as follows: the appellant (plaintiff) initiated the lawsuit by a statement of claim fulfilling legal requirements, deposited with the Case Management Office and duly served on the defendants, seeking at the conclusion thereof: First, as a matter of urgency and before deciding on the merits: issuing an order enabling the plaintiff to irrigate his land from the water well located on the first defendant's land until the lawsuit is determined. Second: confirming an irrigation easement right in favor of the plaintiff's land from the water well situated on the first defendant's land, enjoining both defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's exercise of this right, and enabling him to use the well's water to irrigate his land. Third: ordering the defendants to pay fees, expenses, and advocate's fees.

This was based on the assertion that the plaintiff owns an agricultural land parcel situated in ... in the Emirate of ..., the ownership of which devolved upon him pursuant to an assignment deed from his father ... dated 28/05/2012, who had in turn inherited it from his father ..., being the joint predecessor of the plaintiff and the first defendant ... The land was held in common ownership and was subsequently partitioned following their predecessor's death. There existed on this land a water well constructed by the predecessor, and following him,

the plaintiff's father (the former owner of the land) rehabilitated, maintained, and expanded the well at his personal expense. The well was used to irrigate the entire land prior to partition, and this use continued for a period of time, establishing that this well was designated to irrigate both properties together. Following partition, the well fell within the allotment of the first defendant—which the second defendant cultivates—and the plaintiff was prevented from irrigating his land from the well, despite his entitlement to use the well given that the easement remains in force and transfers with the dominant land according to the law.

On 15/07/2020, the predecessor—the plaintiff's father (the former owner of the land)—and the first defendant executed a settlement agreement wherein they agreed that each party would use the well on alternate days from 5:00 a.m. until the Maghrib prayer. Subsequently, the defendants barred the plaintiff from using the well to irrigate his land unlawfully, even though the plaintiff's land relies on it as a primary source of irrigation, and there is no alternative source, which could cause damage and destruction to the crops on the plaintiff's land, constituting imminent irreparable harm. Therefore, the plaintiff urgently requested an order allowing him to irrigate his land from the well on the first defendant's land pending judgment. At the hearing on 06/07/2026, the Court of First Instance dismissed the lawsuit.

The appellant appealed this judgment before the Fujairah Court of Appeal. At the hearing of 25/08/2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the appealed judgment.

The appellant challenged this judgment by way of cassation. Upon consideration in the consultation room, the Court found the appeal worthy of review, scheduled a hearing, and notified both parties.

Grounds of Cassation and Court's Assessment

Whereas the appellant's collective grounds of cassation fault the contested judgment with error in applying and interpreting the law, contravening what is established in the records, flawed reasoning, and prejudice to the fundamental right of defense, in that it dismissed the suit despite the appellant's established right to continue irrigation from the respondent's farm and his easement right, as well as the invalidity of the material facts stated in the expert report regarding the well's date, previous agreements concerning irrigation from the well, funding sources, and irrigation timings, which vitiates the judgment and warrants its cassation.

Whereas this grievance is untenable; it is established in the noble principles of Islamic Sharia and statutory law alike that the right of ownership is the owner's absolute authority to dispose of their property

in essence, usufruct, and exploitation. The owner of the thing alone has the right to enjoy the owned asset, its proceeds, fruits, and produce, and to dispose of its essence through all legally permissible dispositions. The owner of a thing also owns what is considered its essential components that cannot be severed without perishing, spoiling, or changing. Whoever owns land owns what is above it and what is beneath it to the extent useful for enjoyment upwards and downwards, unless statutory law or contractual agreement stipulates otherwise. No one's property may be taken without a lawful cause, and expropriation can only occur for public benefit against fair compensation and pursuant to the provisions of the law.

The grounds for acquiring ownership of real estate are confined within the framework of inheritance, estate, contract, possession, preemption, warranty, bequest, and rules of accession. Ownership of real property and other real property rights are not transferred between contracting parties and towards third parties except by registration in accordance with the provisions of applicable legislation, to eliminate fraud and prevent encroachment upon real estate. If multiple persons dispute the ownership of real estate, the possessor in whose name the property is registered is provisionally regarded as having physical possession unless it is established that such possession was acquired through defective means. Possession retains its character established at the time of its acquisition unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

An easement action concerns confirming a real property right for the benefit of a third party and another tenement, such as the right of way, watercourse, drainage, and drinking/irrigation. An easement right is a real right limiting the utility of a tenement for the benefit of another tenement owned by another person. An easement may be established over public property provided it does not conflict with the designated use of that property. An easement is acquired by legal transaction, inheritance, or operation of law. Apparent easements, including rights of way, watercourse, and drainage, are acquired by prescription, unless the right is proven unlawful, in which case the harm must be removed regardless of how ancient it may be. Anyone granting permission to use an easement on property owned by them may revoke such permission at any time.

The owner of the dominant tenement may exercise their easement right within lawful limits and perform what is necessary for its use and maintenance without increasing the easement's burden, exercising this right in a manner that causes the least harm. If new needs arise from the dominant tenement that increase the easement's burden, the court may, after balancing both parties' interests, order an adjustment of the easement as necessitated by the need to meet that increase, against fair compensation. The owner of the servient tenement may not perform any act that diminishes the exercise of the easement or renders it more onerous,

and they may not in particular change the existing state of affairs or substitute another location for the location originally designated for exercising the easement. If the location originally designated has become such as to increase the burden of the easement, or has become an obstacle to improvements on the servient tenement, the owner of this tenement may request moving the easement to another location within the property itself, or to another property owned by them, or to a property owned by a third party if the third party agrees, provided that the use of the easement in its new location is as convenient for the owner of the dominant tenement as it was in its previous state. If the dominant tenement is partitioned, the easement right remains established for each part thereof, provided this does not increase the burdens on the servient tenement. If the easement right benefits only some of these parts, the owner of the servient tenement may request terminating the easement right regarding the remaining parts.

The right of drinking is the turn of using water for irrigating land or plantations. If the right of drinking and irrigation is established for someone in land owned by another, the owner may not prevent them from it unless the act was an act of pure tolerance. The owner of the tenement containing the water source may stop pumping water to the other party when the latter dispenses with it through other water sources.

It is further established in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court that the trial court has full authority to deduce and comprehend the facts of the case and evaluate evidence of proof, including written evidence such as official or customary instruments, presumptions, and expert reports, with no supervision over it as long as it bases its judgment on sound and sufficient reasons to sustain it after considering all surrounding circumstances, and it is not required to trace all arguments and defenses of the parties or respond independently to each argument raised, whenever establishing the truth it accepted and demonstrated contains the implicit response invalidating those assertions and arguments.

Whereas, the contested judgment, upholding the first-instance judgment that dismissed the appellant's claim, reached a correct conclusion finding that the easement right had been extinguished due to the existence of multiple water sources on site for the appellant's farm, and due to the failure to establish the elements of liability against the respondents, the appellant's grievance as the owner of the dominant tenement amounts to no more than substantive argument concerning the trial court's authority in understanding facts, weighing evidence, and assessing the existence of the material legal fact and entitlement to the easement between the dominant and servient tenements. Consequently, the appeal must be dismissed in all its grounds for lacking support in noble Islamic Sharia and statutory law.

In view of the foregoing:

Ruling

The Court dismissed the cassation appeal.