“Dubai Civil” refused to compensate the owner for the years of use

A judicial dispute over a “grant land” after it was sold with an invalid contract 26 years ago

The Dubai Civil Court rejected a lawsuit brought by the owner of a “grant” plot of land, which he sold about 26 years ago, with a contract that was later invalidated, in which he demanded the first buyer of the land and the heirs of a second purchaser, to pay an amount of three million and 746 thousand dirhams, as compensation for their use of the land over the course of the year. The years in which they were under their possession, in the context of an extended judicial dispute between the two parties, which the court decided by not being entitled to compensation because the sale was based on an invalid contract from the ground up.

In detail, the landowner stated in his lawsuit that he had obtained a grant for a plot of land in one of the residential areas, in addition to another grant, which is a housing loan of 500,000 dirhams, to build a house on it, provided that he pays the value of this grant in equal monthly installments.

He said that he sold the land to the first defendant in 1996 for 200 thousand dirhams, with the latter granting the loan for housing, to be paid by himself on behalf of the original owner, and together they signed a fictitious contract worth one million and 500 thousand dirhams, to guarantee the rights of the buyer until the sale process is documented after obtaining An exception was made by His Highness the Ruler, in accordance with the requirements of the law on the sale of grant land, which does not allow this without permission, pointing out that he accepted the signing of that fictitious contract due to his urgent need for the amount.

The owner added in his lawsuit that the first buyer resold the land after three years, in exchange for one million and 200 thousand dirhams, and the latter received 700 thousand in cash from it as the second seller, in addition to 500 thousand dirhams of the value of the housing loan that was initially granted to the original owner to build a house on it.

The owner indicated that he was surprised after 16 years of selling the land, specifically in 2013, that there were arrears on the housing loan granted to him to build on the land, which was supposed to be paid by the first buyer, and after him the second purchase, so he went back to the first, asking him to pay the amount, but He discovered that he had sold the land for the second time, so he reviewed its heirs, but they refused, in turn, which prompted him to file a lawsuit to nullify the sale contract from the ground up, especially since he will pay the value of the remainder of the housing loan, which exceeds the amount that he sold the land at the beginning, and a final judgment was issued to invalidate the contract and recover ground.

For their part, and in light of their obligation to hand over the land, the heirs of the second purchaser filed a lawsuit demanding the original owner, and the first seller who sold the land to their mother, to return the amount she paid to purchase the land, and another amount she paid from the value of the housing loan about 250 thousand dirhams, and the heirs were issued a final judgment obligating the owner And the first seller jointly refund the required amounts.

According to the lawsuit papers, the landowner was forced to pay the full amount that the court ruled to the heirs of the second purchaser, due to the inability of the first seller to pay his share of the amount, and the heirs opened an executive file against the owner alone.

In the final stage of the judicial dispute, the owner decided to file a lawsuit against the heirs and the person from whom he initially bought the land, and resold it to their mother, in which he demanded to pay the value of the usufruct of his land over a period of 26 years, and the value of the usufruct of the property that was built on it, which paid more than 50 % of the loan granted to build it, indicating that the value of the sums he paid in the land was about two million dirhams, while others benefited from them.

For their part, the defendants paid in the last lawsuit, after it was allowed to consider the previous adjudication in all stages of the litigation, and the heirs of the second purchaser filed a counterclaim, obligating the owner to return the amount of 250 thousand dirhams in the value of the installments paid by their mother for the housing loan.

After examining the case, the civil court rejected it, given the precedent for adjudicating it, and ruling that the owner is not entitled to the amounts he is claiming, due to the illegality of the sale from the ground up, and its reliance on a void contract.

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