جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "proof of ownership" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

In this article, by providing and criticizing a judgment concerning proof of a husband's ownership of a property purchased during the marriage in the name of the wife while it was paid for by the husband, we examine the extent of the court's attention to the implied terms of the sales contract, discerning the real will of the parties to the transaction, identification of the principal party in the contract and compliance with the principles and rules of civil procedure (in terms of evidence to prove the claim, territorial jurisdiction and determination of relief and defendants). Branch 79 of the Tehran General Civil Court and Branch 25 of the Appellate Court of Tehran Province considered the notarial deed that transfers the property and the issued title to the property in the name of the wife as an example of the apparent will and the payment of the total price on the part of the husband as evidence of the real will in concluding the transaction, made a judgment to establish the husband's ownership and obliged the wife (wife's heirs) to draw up a notarial deed in the name of the husband. In addition, the Court considered the husband's written request from the wife’s heir to buy his share of the inheritance, i.e. the property subject to the dispute, as a request for concluding a contract of compromise and not the husband's admission of the wife's ownership of the said property. For this purpose, we shall break down the judgments handed down by Branch 79 of the Tehran General Civil Court and Branch 25 of the Appellate Court of Tehran Province into their constituent parts and by relying on an analytical method, we shall see in the reconstitution of their constituent parts what objections can be made to the reasoning process followed by the trial and appellate courts. It seems that most of these objections are due to the fact that the court's decision in this case was more the result of the judge's subjective perception, rather than that of any logical argument.

The purpose of this research is to examine the position of declaration distribution offices in registration rights and their role in delimiting property boundaries and its effects in proving the ownership of individuals. The research method in this research is descriptive-analytical and it is also practical in terms of its purpose. The method of collecting materials is also library studies which are collected through the collection of books, articles and related sources. The results showed that the first step for land registration is to stamp the license plate and insert it in the declaration distribution office. The regulation of the registration law was approved in 1317, and according to this regulation, the registration office is required to have a declaration distribution office, and most of the lands stamped with license plates in that year have been registered and have official ownership documents, and there are still lands. that due to some reasons, for example, a dispute between the owners or the low value of the land, etc., which has not been registered and remains in the initial stage, i.e., the plate is stamped, after resolving the dispute, it will lead to the issuance of a document through the registration process and formalities. If there is a dispute, these lands will be acquired by government departments or public institutions, and lawsuits will be filed in judicial authorities to receive the price of those lands.

The necessary condition for filing a dispossession lawsuit is the property plaintiff at the time of filing the lawsuit. Assuming that the plaintiff has an instrument under seal, his lawsuit against the unauthorized possessor of the property is accepted, but if he does not have an instrument under seal, there is a great deal of disagreement in the jurisprudence as to whether he can file a foreclosure lawsuit. The prevailing theory is that such a person should accept an dispossession lawsuit. But there is also a difference of opinion as to how to prove ownership in terms of procedure law. While some argue that the plaintiff must first prove his ownership by filing a claim for proof of ownership and then a claim for dispossession. Others believe that he can file a claim for proof of ownership and dispossession in a lawsuit, and the court They take care of both. Even some, who are, of course, in the minority, believe that mere litigation is sufficient, and proof of ownership is a condition of the dispossession lawsuit and it is necessary, and the court must consider it without explicit request of the plaintiff. To issue, this difference of procedure is due to the theoretical difference that has existed for years in the doctrine regarding the meaning of Articles 22, 46, 47 and 48 of the Registration law and has also found its way into the judicial procedure. The legislature, apparently skeptical of an explicit law, had for years considered it expedient to remain silent and leave the courts to their own devices. Ownership of registered property does not require an instrument under seal.

Presumption of ownership is one of the important jurisprudential rules and one of the most common proofs of ownership. In particular, protection of possession becomes more important in the ownership of tangible property, where the maintenance of a title deed is not customary, And violating the right of the possessor and demanding a reason from him, disturbs the economic order and the market of Muslims. There are two criteria in analyzing the basics of tangible property: the first is the majority and the second is the primary nature's requirement of the possessor, but we mentioned the third criterion in the article that is customary recognition. Because although the criterion in the rule of possession is not the majority, it does not necessarily return to the basic requirement of possession but is the criterion of customary recognition. There is disagreement among jurists about the conflict between the rule of possession and confession. According to Article 37 of the Civil Code: if the present occupier admits that the property formerly belonged to the claimant, he cannot urge, in refutation of the other's claim, his own occupation of the property, unless he can prove that the property has been transferred to him according to the correct procedure. The validity of the ownership presumption is lost. Some law professors do not distinguish between confession and other evidence of ownership and believe that proving the legitimacy of the claimant will nullify the effect of the property statute for whatever reason. On the other hand, some others believe that according to the text of this article, the only proof of ownership that can destroy the validity is a confession among all other ownership proofs, in other words, there is a feature in the confession that is not in others. However, we have justified the article in two ways: first, if the possessor confesses to the plaintiff's ownership history, she is responsible for proving the reason until the end (until her possession). The second solution can be deduced from the comparison between Article 37 and 1282 and 1283 of the Civil Code, and it was said that the confession of the possessor is covered by Article 1283 and is considered a complex confession.