Legal review of conflict between current seizure and former ownership

The acquisition is one of the most common proofs of ownership, especially in the possession of movable property, most of which are transacted with trades, and the customization of the document is not customary. But we know that the degree of credibility of the municipality is less than other reasons, and in the event of conflict with other proofs, such as confession, document and testimony, there is no resistance and the government is reason. That is why the legislator stated in Article 35 of the Civil Code, after assuming possession as ownership, unless otherwise agreed. In order not to create the impression that the validity of this legal assumption is as proven as other proofs. This is obvious and proven when it comes to the provisions of the term and other arguments of unity of time, but sometimes this unity does not exist. In the assumption of our case, the reason is the former ownership and the property is seized to the present property. This is where doubts are formed and different opinions are expressed. A large number of scholars of law are of the opinion that civil law also accepts this principle - the ownership of the former property can not conflict with the title, and the present occupation is preceded by a small group of Law scholars including Dr. Katouzian believe that seizure is a matter of ownership, with no history of ownership. In the case of which the former owner is certain, the present patron can not invoke his capture against him. In this case, the landlord must prove that the property has been transferred to him by one of the legal entities (Katouzian, 2007, p. 201 We will review and review them further.