The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that ruled for a divorced woman to be entitled to the disputed land with her ex-husband, and referred the dispute to the Court of Appeal for its consideration again in light of the disregard for the defense response that the plaintiff’s former husband had paid the price of the land.
In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit demanding proof of her ownership of a residential commercial plot of land, and forcing the defendant to transfer her ownership of her to the competent authorities.
She said that she bought the property from the first defendant and agreed with him to keep it in his name, and it was time to recover the land, which prompted her to file her lawsuit.
The Court of First Instance ruled to reject the plaintiff’s claim and the attacking intervene’s lawsuit (the plaintiff’s former husband) on the basis that the land may not be disposed of in the first place, then the Court of Appeal ruled to annul the first ruling and the judiciary again to establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the residential commercial plot of land, and to oblige her former husband to transfer ownership in the name of the plaintiff.
The two defendants (the plaintiff’s former husband and the seller) appealed this ruling by cassation, as their defense confirmed that the judgment violated the law and violated the right of the essential defense when it decided to annul the first ruling and the judiciary again to prove the plaintiff’s ownership of the residential commercial plot of land, and to oblige the current owner to transfer the property in the name of the plaintiff, with their submission Legal evidence, including the testimony and the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that the real buyer of the property is the former plaintiff’s husband, and that he paid the price and construction value to the contractor, and that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the plot of land and the construction on it, and the case was not referred for investigation in this regard.
For its part, the Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the verdict must include what is reassuring to the insider that the court obtained an understanding of the reality and surrounded the elements of the case and the evidence presented, counted the litigants ’defense and confronted it with an adequate and acceptable response, and that the judgment’s omission is a defense that, if it is correct, would change the point of view in the case, imprinting it. The defect of deficiency in causation, and that the essential defense must ensure that the court responds to it in installments, and the adherence to the abstract reassurance that sends a presumption is not enriched, and that the court’s assurance must not contradict the conclusive evidence, otherwise it is devoid of its legal source.
She indicated that the two defendants adhered to the request to refer the case to investigation to prove that the plaintiff did not own the residential commercial plot of land, and that the real buyer of the property was the husband of the former plaintiff and that he paid the price and the construction value to the contractor, and that the plaintiff has nothing to do with the commercial residential plot of land or the construction on which it is, except that the ruling He ignored this essential defense and neglected his research and scrutiny to the extent necessary, similar to a failure to cause and breach the right of defense, which necessitates its repeal with the referral.