A Khaleeji accuses his wife of seizing his father's villa with a "fictitious contract"

«Ras Al Khaimah Appeal» rejected the husband's lawsuit.

archival

A Gulf man lost a villa after he sold it with a fictitious contract to his wife worth 200,000 dirhams. The tent upheld the appealed verdict.

In detail, Khaleeji stated that he sold a fictitious residential villa to his wife for a value of 200,000 dirhams, with the plaintiff taking over the ownership transfer later to him, explaining that the villa was owned by his father and he gave it up to him.

He added that his wife took advantage of the opportunity and acquired the ownership of the villa without a valid and realistic document, and by virtue of the marital relationship, he did not obtain evidence of the sham sale, and the evidence for that fictitiousness is that the amount established in the contract is not in line with the actual price of the property.

For his part, the plaintiff’s agent stated that the case was not considered in the case of a previous decision by the Ras Al Khaimah courts finally, as an expert had previously been delegated and proved the ownership of the property to his client, and requested that the case not be accepted because the claimant acknowledged the contract of sale and received the price, and it was registered and documented with the official authorities.

In the verdict of the Civil Court of Appeal, it was established that two rulings of the first and second degrees were issued by a different court of appeal in the Ras Al Khaimah courts, rejecting the plaintiff’s claim to request the termination of the sale contract because it was fictitious for not paying the real price. It is established in the papers that the plaintiff sold the villa to the plaintiff under a sale contract and registered the property and acknowledged receiving the price for a free and conscious will that did not resemble one of the defects of the will, pointing out that the plaintiff appealed the cassation ruling, which ruled that the case was not accepted, and then the terms of the sale contract met the conditions of its validity.

She clarified that the issued judgments gained the power of the res judicata, and therefore it is not permissible to raise issues that were settled by the judgments, even with legal or factual evidence that had not previously been raised before the courts that issued them, and that this case does not depart from the same facts and does not affect the alteration and modification of the plaintiff to his requests in the case and adding New requests, including the defendant's failure to receive the property in question on the refusal of its validity, does not deny its ownership as long as its validity and title deed is proven and it has been registered with the correct legal procedures.

She added that the Court of Appeal may take the judgment of the Court of First Instance as a reason for its judgment without establishing for itself special reasons when it considers their sufficiency to carry out the judgment, and that it is established that the reasons cited by the plaintiff did not deviate in essence from what was expressed before the Court of First Instance, and then the Court decides to reject the appeal Confirming the appealed judgment and obligating the plaintiff to pay the expenses.

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