|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί νομοθεσία ή απόφαση ή δικονομικός θεσμός στον οποίο να κάνει αναφορά η απόφαση αυτή
Μεταγενέστερη νομολογία η οποία κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή:
Δεν έχει εντοπιστεί απόφαση η οποία να κάνει αναφορά στην απόφαση αυτή
(V1) 1 CLR 31
1886 April 19
[BOVILL, C.J. AND SMITH, J.]
TOPAL AHMET
Plaintiff,
v.
HADJI HUSSEIN AGHA
Defendant.
AGREEMENT PURPORTING TO SELL IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY—NO REGISTRATION IN NAME OF PURCHASER—UNINTERRUPTED OCCUPATION OF VENDEE—RIGHT TO RECOVER PURCHASE MONEY.
Where under a contract purporting to sell immoveable property which remains registered in the name of vendor, the vendee has taken and remains in occupation of the property without any interference on the part of the vendor, he has no right to claim a return of the purchase money.
APPEAL from the District Court of Larnaca.
Action to recover the amount of the purchase money of certain immoveable property which Rahme the wife of the defendant purported to sell to the plaintiff under a contract dated the 13th June, 1296. The plaintiff assumed occupation of the property and at the date of the action was still in occupation of it without any interference from the heirs of the vendor, she having died subsequently to the date of the contract.
The District Court gave judgment for the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed.
Appellant, in person, submitted that the plaintiff was still in undisturbed occupation of the property.
Salih Effendi for the respondent.
Judgment: In this case the plaintiff alleges that he purchased certain immoveable property from Rahme the wife of the defendant. The property was purported to be sold under a contract of sale, but the sale was never perfected by registration, and the property still remains registered in the name of Rahme. We gather that the plaintiff is now desirous of having the property registered in his name, but owing to the fact that Rahme is dead and that her heirs are not desirous of assisting him, he finds himself in a difficulty. He took possession of the property and has remained in occupation and peaceable enjoyment of it without any interference on the part of the defendant, or anyone else. What then is the effect of the agreement he entered into with Rahme? It is quite clear that such a contract cannot operate to confer upon the plaintiff the legal possession of the property, which remained in the eye of the law her property: and all that the contract effected was to give the plaintiff the occupation and enjoyment of the property; and so long as he remains in occupation without any interference on the part of Rahme or her heirs, he has got all that he could get under the contract and has no further rights against anyone. If he had wished to protect himself against all difficulties in the future he should have been careful not to have paid the purchase money until the sale had been carried out completely by the registration of the property in his own name. Under the circumstances of the present case we are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff has no right to relief against anyone.
Appeal allowed.