A woman refuses to return 33 thousand dirhams to her boyfriend .. She considered her a gift

The Abu Dhabi Family and Civil and Administrative Courts ruled, rejecting a lawsuit filed by a man against a woman in which he requested that she be obliged to return 33 thousand dirhams, lending her to buy a car, while she denied the defendant, and confirmed that she was a gift from the plaintiff.

The court indicated that the transfer is only a mere transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims the reason for this is to prove it.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against a woman, in which he demanded that the defendant be obligated to perform an amount of 33 thousand dirhams, and to compel her with fees and expenses of the lawsuit, indicating that the defendant asked him for a loan for the amount Its procrastination and procrastination, and did not return it to him despite his repeated demands.

The plaintiff attached a support to his lawsuit with pictures of bank transfers, while the defendant submitted an answer note, at the end of which she rejected the case.

During the interrogation of the court of the plaintiff, he decided that the defendant asked him, in the middle of last year, a loan to buy a car and pay the amount of a car rental, and by virtue of the friendship between them, he transferred the amount to her account and the auto gallery account, but she did not fulfill the debt, while the defendant denied during her interrogation of all that came in the prosecutor’s statements, and decided that he sent the amount to her as a gift to her and her children.

The court directed the oath to the plaintiff, so he swore it in the form of “I swear to God Almighty that I lend the defendant an amount of 33 thousand dirhams upon its request to return the amount, but it did not return it or any part of it and that it was preoccupied with my favor in that amount and God is what I say a martyr.”

For its part, the court indicated in the reasons for its ruling, that it is not obligated to track the opponents in all their arguments and their defense, as it is not obligated to assign the opponent to provide evidence of his defense or draw his attention to the requirements of this defense, and according to it to establish its judiciary in accordance with the documents and the evidence presented to it, noting that the constant is that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit by requesting that the defendant be obligated to the amount that he transferred to the amount The loan path, and the fixed and stable with the court was that the transfer is only a mere transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims the reason for this is to prove it, because the basic principle is the innocence of the disclosure, and that its preoccupation is an exhibiting matter that must be established.

She pointed out that the prosecutor’s claim was sent without providing evidence of the authenticity of the incident and the reason for the transfers, and the court was not obligated to assign the opponent to provide evidence of his defense or draw his attention to the requirements of this defense, and according to it to establish its judiciary according to the documents presented to it.

The court ruled that the lawsuit rejected its condition, while obliging the plaintiff to fees and expenses.

Court:

. Transfer is nothing but the transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims a reason must prove it.