The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that validated the validity of a contract to sell a property between a seller and buyers, stating that "the property is a grant and can not be dealt with" to violate the local legislation prohibiting the disposal of real estate grants granted to citizens by sale, mortgage, donation or waiver. She referred the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.
In details, a person filed a lawsuit against two other persons, demanding their expulsion from a disputed property, and obliging them to hand over the title deed and land during the period of their stay on the grounds of the nullity of the contract of sale of the property.
On the other hand, the defendants filed a counter-claim, seeking to prove their ownership of the property in question, and the validity of the contract with the plaintiff for the sale of the property, on the basis that they had purchased the property granted to the defendant by the Government, , Which led them to lift their opposing claims against him.
In the original case, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim, in the corresponding case of the validity and effectiveness of the contract for the sale of the property, ordered its registration and was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff did not plead guilty and challenged him to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The judgment was wrong in the application of the law, when it decreed the validity and effectiveness of the contract of sale of the property, even though it was a void contract, it was handed over to him as a grant from the government and can not be disposed of except with the permission of the Governor. In accordance with the instructions issued by the concerned housing department, May be dealt with in violation of the law that prohibits the disposal of public housing and grants from beneficiaries by sale or rent or mortgage.
The Supreme Court of Justice upheld this appeal, stating that "the court of matter must take the evidence before it and respond to the substantive defense of the adversaries in which the opinion may be changed. If the court fails to speak in its judgment of the evidence affecting the dispute, , And did not examine what was stated by stating that it surrounded the reality of the reality in the case, and that exhausted everything in its power to reveal the face of the right, the ruling is a minor ».
She pointed out that the plaintiff held the nullity of the contract of sale of the property as a grant and can not be dealt with in violation of the local legislation, which prevent the disposal of real estate grants to citizens by sale or mortgage or donation or waiver. They are peremptory legislative provisions relating to public order and have a direct impact on the sale and purchase of real estate contracts in the emirate in which the property in question is located.
The court ruled that the ruling of the appeal has validated the validity and validity of the contract of sale on the basis that the contract was valid between the parties and arranged opposite obligations without considering whether the sale is real or permissible, as required by the laws and regulations in force in the Emirate , Which was the defense of the plaintiff, but the ruling ignored this fundamental defense, and overshadowed its research and scrutiny, similar to the lack of causation and violation of the right of defense, and based on the reasons for not enough to bear, which must be revoked.
Federal Court
Stressed the need
Take note and answer
On defense
The core of the opponents.