The Sharia Supreme Court of Appeal invalidated a gift, which is a house in Arad Wahba, Bahraini before his death, without his eight children from a former wife, and the court said that the donor remained present and inhabited in the property, the subject of the pursuit until his death, and the possession in which the king moved was not achieved by the exit of the donor from the house before his death despite his possession of several other homes. The lawsuit takes its facts, according to what the lawyer Muhammad al -Sharabi said, that the eight children of Bahraini were surprised that their father’s wife transferred the ownership of the house that he was in Arad to ownership on the pretext that their father had gave him during his life, so they filed a lawsuit before the Sharia court, demanding the annulment of the gift, stressing that it had occurred during the period of death and was then a lack of awareness. The first degree issued its ruling to reject the lawsuit, and obligated the prosecutors expenses and in exchange for the fees of law, but this ruling was not accepted by the appellants, and they challenged it, and they requested the abolition of the ruling and the judiciary again to nullify the legal gift and consider it as if it was not and re -registration of the property in the name of the donor inherited the appellant The real estate document for the real estate is the subject of the gift contract. The lawyer pushed the law wrongly in the application of the law and the provisions of the true Sharia when he spent the court ruling of the first degree to reject the case, based on the bonds that collide with the texts of the law and the reality of the lawsuit, and the violation of the constant in the papers from the medical reports of the state of the donor. And for him, that the gifted in the gift behaves the angel in the life of the donor; In order for the legal possession to which the king moves, and what Ibn Abi Zaid al -Qayrawani mentioned in his message: “There is no gift, charity, or imprisonment, except with possession, if he dies before he is subject to it, it is an inheritance.” The commandment, unless there is evidence that contradicts that. ” He remained present and inhabited in the real estate the subject of the plot until his death, and then the condition of the evacuation was not achieved, and that the appellant against it did not possess it actual ownership, or receives it or possesses actual possession, or puts its hand on it, and then the appellant against it did not simplify its material control over the property, or appear in it as the owner of the owner, and did not benefit from it or the arrest and evacuation of the life The commandment, just as the decision is a jurisprudence that there is no will for an inheritance. By canceling the appealed judgment, and the judiciary again to nullify the Sharia gift and consider it as if it were not.
