One of them received a gift taking advantage of the father's deteriorating mental state

Federal Supreme resolves a dispute between two brothers over the drug of their sick father

The court upheld the findings of the contested judgment proving the nullity of the conduct of the parties to the litigation.

Emirates today

The Federal Supreme Court rejected a person’s appeal against an appeal ruling that nullified the gift of a drug that he obtained from his sick father, asserting that “the defendant took advantage of his father’s lack of awareness and the deterioration of his mental and mental state, and obtained from him the disputed gift with his brother.”

And a person had filed a lawsuit against his brother to rule for him to cancel a gift deed for a property owned by their father, and he asked to address the Land Department to re-register the property in the father’s name.

The plaintiff said that his brother took advantage of their father's illness, stroke, mental dementia, poor memory, and mental disability after illness and accident, and obtained from him a waiver and gift of the drug without his knowledge and the knowledge of the rest of his brothers and the family, while not being entitled to it.

The court of first instance appointed a real estate expert and a forensic doctor, and the forensic doctor confirmed that the father’s disposition of the gift of the drug was during his mental disability, his docility to anyone, and that he was not responsible for his actions.

The court of first instance ruled to nullify the gift of the defendant’s father to the property, and decided to address the Land and Property Department to re-register the property in the name of the donor (the father of the parties to the litigation), with the defendant being obligated to pay the expenses, and the appeals court confirmed it.

The defendant did not accept the ruling, so he appealed it in cassation, explaining that the judgment was wrong in applying the law and violated the fixed papers, because the contract is in fact a sale contract and not a gift, and that the gift contract is a fictitious contract, in order to evade registration fees that are reduced in registering donations, in contrast to the sale contract Which increases registration fees.

The Federal Supreme Court rejected this appeal, explaining that "the insane and the big insane, who are interdicted, join the incompetent minor."

And it confirmed the findings of the contested judgment proving the nullity of the behavior of the father of the parties to the litigation in registering the property in the name of the defendant, regardless of the type and nature of the disposition, given that the defendant took advantage of his father's lack of awareness after the illness he had acquired, and the accident that led to the deterioration of his mental and mental state, And during his illness, stroke, mental dementia, poor memory and mental disability, ease of submission to anyone, and that he is not responsible for his actions, lack of satisfaction and will from the donor, and therefore all his actions are without effect and null.

- The

court: "The insane and the big fool, who are interdicted, join the incompetent minor."

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news