A husband filed a lawsuit against his wife, demanding that she pay him one hundred thousand dirhams and transfer the ownership of the car from her name to his name, explaining that the defendant as his wife deposited in his account an amount of one hundred thousand dirhams in order to preserve it and did not return it to him, and he also bought a car to transport the children He spent the house’s needs and registered them in her name, but when he wanted to transfer them in his name, she refused.
The first instance court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit, then the appeals court preliminaryly directed the decisive oath to the defendant in the form that was presented to it in relation to the financial amount and had taken it before the court panel, and after commenting from both parties, the appeals court ruled to cancel the first ruling, in the split of the application for transfer of ownership The vehicle and the ruling again obligate the wife to register the car, which is a Volkswagen Touareg 2006 model in the name of the plaintiff, and hand it over to him and support him otherwise, and obliges the defendant on the occasion of the fees and orders clearing of attorney fees.
The wife was not satisfied with this ruling, and she stabbed him to veto, explaining that the ruling violated the law and erred in its application and violated the established papers when he decided to compel her to return the car - the subject of the case - to the plaintiff, without noting that he was the one who bought her voluntarily and registered it in her name in the Traffic Department and its possession It is for him to exploit it to eliminate her interests and the interests of her family, which is what the plaintiff stated, and she authenticated it in his statements and therefore his behavior is considered a gift without compensation for the fulfillment of all its conditions pursuant to the provisions of Article 615 and beyond of the Civil Transactions Law. Error in conditioning and s Ia proper legal proceedings adapted which tainted by breaking the law and violation of the securities firm, which vitiated and should be annulled.
The Supreme Federal Court upheld the wife’s appeal, confirming that the decision - in the jurisdiction of this court - that the subject matter court has an obligation to give the case its description and the right and its correct legal adaptation as it extracts it is excused from the reality of reality and the common intention between the two parties and without the consideration of adapting the litigants to it.
She affirmed that legally determined that the gift is the possession of money or financial right for the last state of the owner’s life without compensation, and it is held in affirmative and acceptance and is done by arresting any possession. 614/2 of the same law stipulating that: “The donor, with the idea of the donation remaining, may stipulate that the talented person must make a specific commitment, and this commitment shall be considered a substitute.”
The court indicated that the evidence showed that the plaintiff had bought the car - the subject of collapsing - and registered it in the name of his wife willingly and in his individual will and without compensation, and the car was acquired by registering it in her name, which is with him to act as a gift without compensation, which was presented by the appeal judgment, which is tainted by violating the law And the constant with leaves which must be reversed.