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 (Gulf) 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 inheritor, and that he paid 160,000 dirhams in participation from him to his father to buy the house, and their inheritance paid the rest of the purchase amount. By referring 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 in the 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 appellee had filed a lawsuit demanding the expulsion of her brother from her house, as he was a usurper, and handing it over to her empty, on the basis of saying that she owned the house under a title deed, and that she decided to take 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 justification. What made her sue to get it.
In the verdict of the 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 of shortcomings in causation and corruption in the inference that he gave 160 thousand dirhams to his father to buy the house, and his father paid the rest The amount and its registration in the name of the respondent’s sister came without a 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 respondent, as the contract was not challenged in a legal way.
She explained that the seller did not dispute the appellant in the contract, the title transfer deed, 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, Hence, what the appellant raised was unsubstantiated and worthy of rejection.
It confirmed what the appealed judgment had concluded was correct and consistent with the provisions of the law. The court decided to reject the appeal, uphold the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay expenses and attorneys’ fees.