"Cassation" refers a dispute between heirs to "appeal"

The “appeal” refused the plaintiffs ’request to sell their property stakes.

Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld the plaintiffs appealed against an appeals ruling that rejected their request to sell their shares in a property they owned with others on the basis of a common inheritance, based on the fact that they were before the court of first instance demanding the sale of the entire property, indicating that what matters is the truth of the request and its structure, not the terms in which it was formulated, and that The litigants' submission of the dispute before the courts as an allegation and defense means that they are requesting a legal ruling on it.

The details of the case are due to the fact that the plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit in which they requested permission to sell the plot of land and the building on it, with the assignment of an engineering expert to calculate the property rent from the date of the death of the inheritor of the two parties until the date of filing the lawsuit, and determining the value of their share in the property from that fee during that period , Explaining that they owned the property with the common defendants by inheritance, and if it was not possible to divide it in kind between them because of its small area, this prevented them from benefiting from their share in it.

The Court of First Instance ruled rejecting the request to delegate the expert, and its lack of specific competence to consider the request to sell the property and refer it in its case to the competent civil department, and the competent department decided to reject the case based on the fact that the plaintiffs exceeded their request to sell the entire property without their shares in it, so the plaintiffs appealed the ruling and requested permission to sell their shares in the property. Without the shares of the rest of the partners.

After the court appointed an expert and submitted his report, the Court of Appeal ruled to reject their appeal on the grounds that the plaintiffs ’request to sell their shares in the property without the shares of the rest of the partners is a new application that is not accepted for the first time before the Court of Appeal, so the plaintiffs appealed the ruling.

For its part, the Court of Cassation confirmed in the merits of its ruling that the rejection of the request to delegate an expert to the Civil Department, while it upheld the plaintiffs ’appeal regarding the acceptance of the request to sell their shares in the real estate, noting that the new application that is not accepted in the appeal is a request that differs from the request that was presented before A court of first instance regarding his subject matter, his cause, or the opponent directed to him, contrary to what the litigant intends to clarify and define his request, or his correction, or what is intended by his legal consequences.

The court ruled to overturn the ruling, and obligated the defendants to pay fees and expenses and an amount of 1000 dirhams in exchange for attorney fees for the appellants with the return of insurance to them, and ordered the case to be referred to the competent court of appeal for a decision according to the law.

The Court of First Instance ruled rejecting the request to assign an expert, and that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the application for selling the property.

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