The Ras Al Khaimah Civil Appeals Court upheld the ruling issued by the Court of First Instance, to expel a man from his sister’s house, and hand him over to her empty house.
In detail, a man filed a lawsuit, in which he stated that the house was for a common money for their legator, and that he paid 160 thousand dirhams in participation from him to his father, to buy the house, and their legator paid the rest of the purchase amount, and the house was registered in the name of his sister, and the value of the house is 510 thousand dirhams, demanding a referral The case for investigation, because the court of first instance had to examine the transfer of ownership of the house, the person who paid the purchase amount, and the reasons for registering the house in the name of his sister.
He explained that the ruling of the first degree violated the right of defense, and violated the established papers, because he requested directing the decisive oath to his sister without addressing the denial of documents or challenging them for forgery, but the ruling of the first degree refused to direct the decisive oath, despite the availability of its conditions.
The respondent had filed a lawsuit, demanding that her brother be expelled from her house, as a usurper, and handed over to her empty, on the basis of saying that she owns the house under a title deed, and that she decided to hand over her house from her brother to offer it for sale, and repeatedly demanded that he hand it over to her, but he refused without Justified, which made her file a lawsuit to get it.
In the verdict of a civil appeals court, it was stated that the judgment of the Court of First Instance was correct and in accordance with the provisions of the law, and then the court decided to support it, and that the appellant was aware of the appealed judgment with the shortcomings in causation and corruption in inference, that he had paid 160,000 dirhams to his father to buy the house, and he And his father paid the rest of the amount, and registered it in the name of his sister, the appellant, without any basis from reality and the law, because the first degree ruling was based on the registered contract in which the property was transferred to the appellant, as the contract was not legally challenged.
She explained that the seller did not dispute the appellant in the contract, the title deed of transfer of ownership, and therefore the contract is an argument against the contracting parties, as long as he did not obtain it, and the seller did not dispute the price of the sale, and therefore the contract is valid between its parties, and the appellant has the right to exercise her rights as the owner of the property, and from Then what the appellant raised was unsubstantiated and worthy of rejection.
It affirmed that what the appealed judgment concluded was correct and in accordance with the provisions of the law, and the court decided to reject the appeal, uphold the appealed judgment, and obligated the appellant to expenses and attorneys’ fees.