After 7 years.. a man demands that his ex-wife return the “Heba” land

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family, Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a ruling from the court of first instance, which ruled to reject the lawsuit of a husband who demanded to oblige his ex-wife to return a gift of a plot of land that he had given her during their marriage. The court indicated that the lawsuit was filed without a legal basis, after the defendant built on the land in question and after it was mortgaged due to the construction.

In detail, a man filed a lawsuit against his ex-wife, in which he demanded that she be obligated to go through the procedures of returning a piece of land that he had gifted to her seven years ago, and to order the annulment and invalidation of the gift declaration for the piece of land registered in the name of the defendant and to re-register it in his name, and to oblige the defendant to pay the fees and expenses, noting that He had given her the land during their marriage, then he was burdened with debts and judgments were issued against him. He provided copies of the plans, the family agreement, the acknowledgment of the gift, and accounting reports.

During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff submitted a request to include a bank in the case, and requested that it be obligated to transfer the mortgage on the land to its name, while the admitted bank refused to transfer the mortgage, and requested, as a precaution, to keep the mortgage in whoever is in possession of the property. The defendant also requested that the case be dismissed because it had filed A villa on the gifted land, and a mortgage contract was also arranged for the entering bank. The court of first instance ruled to reject the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay its fees and expenses and the attorney’s fees. The plaintiff was not satisfied with the ruling and appealed it before the Court of Appeal, calling out the appealed ruling for error in applying the law and violating what was established in the papers for what he considered to be impediments to returning the gift, including her erection of the building and mortgage of the property to the bank. In the event that he had divorced her of her desire, he was also proven to suffer from the debts that burdened him.

For its part, the Court of Appeal explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established is that the defendant built a villa on the land in question with a value of three million and 180 thousand dirhams, and also mortgaged it to the bank with a loan worth two million dirhams, and therefore the plaintiff’s filing of his present claim was based on no evidence. This is legal after the defendant built on the land in question and after mortgaging it because of the construction. Therefore, the court rules to reject the lawsuit, and the divorce of the defendant from the plaintiff does not change that, as what matters is the timing of the gift, and it also does not change what the plaintiff decided regarding the existence of debts. And judicial enforcements were filed against him, and that his gift of the land was an unjustified trade-off. The court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to reject it and uphold the appealed ruling, and obligated the appellant to pay the expenses.