Dispossession, Conflict of Instrument under Seal and Private Document; Critique of the Judgement No. 9709972993700410, Second Branch of the Legal Court of Rudbar Qasran District of Tehran

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.