A woman seizes an apartment from a man with an “unfulfilled marriage promise.”

The Civil Court in Dubai ruled to oblige an Asian woman to pay 800,000 dirhams to an Arab man, the value of an apartment he bought for her, after she caught him in her trap, promised him marriage, and asked him to buy the apartment so that she could obtain official residency in the country.

In detail, a person of the nationality of an Arab country filed a lawsuit in which he demanded that an Asian woman transfer the ownership of an apartment he had bought for her into his possession, or pay an amount of 800 thousand dirhams, the value of the apartment, while requiring her to pay the fees and expenses of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees, and to provide a scanned copy proving her marriage to another person.

He said in his statement of claim that he was working with the defendant in the same company in her country, and she got close to him until their relationship developed, and she promised him marriage, and she continued to blackmail him and drain his money during the period of their relationship.

He added that she spoke to him about an obstacle preventing her from coming to the country, which is that she does not have a residence visa, and she asked him to buy an apartment for her in the country so that she could obtain a visa, and she assured him that it would be the marital residence, and they would live there together, and she would return it to him after the marriage.

In good faith, the plaintiff responded to her after she visited him more than once, got to know his family, and bought her an apartment worth 800,000 dirhams, which he paid for, then registered it in her name.

He added that he was surprised by a noticeable change in her treatment of him after he registered the apartment, and she began to evade, renounce her promises of marriage to him, and deliberately cause problems, until she announced to him her desire not to continue the relationship.

He pointed out that he then asked her to return the apartment according to their previous agreement, and she assured him that she would return it immediately if their project was not completed together, but she also evaded her obligation, so he took the initiative to file a criminal report against her, based on his lack of liability for what resulted in her enriching the defendant without reason. .

He provided documents to support his claim, namely: copies of the property ownership certificate, a copy of the checks withdrawn from his account indicating that he had paid the price of the apartment, and copies of WhatsApp messages exchanged between them, showing her commitment and promises to him.

In turn, the defendant submitted three legal memorandums, at the end of which she requested that the lawsuit be dismissed due to lack of validity and proof, and that the plaintiff be obligated to pay fees and expenses. She acknowledged that he had bought the apartment for her with his own money, but as a donation or gift.

After examining the requests and memorandums, the civil court responded in the merits of its ruling to the plaintiff’s request to transfer ownership of the apartment to his name by saying that he paid the price of the apartment to the developer, then registered its ownership in the defendant’s name in the real estate registry, and did not provide evidence that he did so by fraud or that there was forgery in the matter. Any of the data or procedures for registering the unit in its name, and this document has absolute authority in proving ownership, and accordingly the defendant’s ownership of the apartment is valid, and the plaintiff has no right to request the transfer of ownership to his name or the issuance of a certificate to that effect, and the court rejects his request.

Regarding the plaintiff’s request to oblige the defendant to pay him an amount of 800 thousand dirhams, the court explained that what is meant by the “unjust enrichment” rule is the obligation of the person who has become enriched to compensate the creditor for what he lacked within the limits of what he was enriched with, and it is a rule that comes from a non-contractual obligation, so that if it There is a contractual bond between the two parties to the dispute or an agreement has been established that governs the relationship between them. The basis for applying this rule is negated, as the agreement is the decisive factor in determining the rights and obligations of each party towards the other.

She pointed out that whoever alleges that his opponent used fraudulent, fraudulent and fraudulent means must prove this, and it is also decided to extract the seriousness of the claim of indebtedness from the authority of the trial court, provided that its conclusion is justified by what is supported on the surface of the papers presented.

It stated that what is clear from the lawsuit papers, and without dispute between its two parties, is that the plaintiff paid the value of the residential apartment owned by the defendant from his own money, amounting to 800 thousand dirhams, based on the defendant’s statement before the court.

She explained that the reality of the case is that the two parties agreed to the relationship, and because of the defendant’s desire to settle in Dubai, he bought the apartment for her with his own money and registered it in her name in the real estate registry, and his doing so was not a donation or gift to the defendant according to her claim, given the letters exchanged between them, which showed The apartment was for the purpose of continuing their relationship, and to overcome the obstacles that prevent this, which is her lack of official residency in the country.

She added that the defendant mentioned in one of the letters that she would return the apartment to him if they separated, and what was clear was that as soon as the dispute occurred between them, the plaintiff filed a report with the police, and thus the court is certain that it affected the value of the amount that the plaintiff owed, which is a rule that comes from an unrelated obligation. The lawsuit lacked a written agreement between them regulating this, and the defendant appeared without providing evidence that she had paid the claimed amount. Accordingly, the court ruled that she be obliged to pay 800 thousand dirhams to the plaintiff, with a legal interest of 5% from the date of the judicial claim, until payment. And obligating her to pay the expenses and fees of the lawsuit and attorney’s fees.

. The court proved with evidence that the plaintiff paid the value of the residential apartment owned by the defendant from his own money.