Dubai court dismisses father's Dh4.28 million claim against son-in-law over villa purchase
Court rules that paying for a property does not, by itself, prove the existence of a loan that must be repaid
Dubai: The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man seeking to recover Dh4,284,305 from his son-in-law, ruling that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a loan relationship between the parties.
The father claimed that he had lent his son-in-law the money to purchase a villa for himself and the plaintiff's daughter. He later sought repayment after marital disputes arose between the couple, culminating in his daughter filing for divorce.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff said his son-in-law requested the funds to buy the villa and that he agreed to provide them. He argued that the marital relationship constituted a moral impediment that prevented him from demanding repayment or documenting the loan for seven years.
The plaintiff submitted copies of cheques issued in favour of the defendant as evidence of his claim.
In its ruling, the court said the basic principle is that a person is free from debt unless the debt is proven. It noted that the burden of proving the existence of the alleged obligation rested with the plaintiff.
The court found that the case file contained no evidence proving the existence of a loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, nor evidence that the defendant had requested to borrow the amounts claimed or undertaken to repay them.
Addressing the plaintiff's argument that the family relationship prevented him from documenting the loan or demanding repayment, the court stated that the existence of a moral impediment, even if assumed, does not itself prove the existence of a debt or its source. The court said its effect is limited to permitting proof of a right without written documentation when the relevant conditions are met, while the claimant remains responsible for proving the debt.
The court further noted that the cheques presented by the plaintiff showed that his company paid the amounts stated in them, but the beneficiaries were the real estate broker, the Land and Property Department and the seller of the villa.
According to the court, the cheques only proved that payments were made to those beneficiaries and did not establish that the amounts were paid to the defendant as a loan, or that he had requested to borrow the funds and committed to repaying them.
The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that, as the owner of the company, he had used company funds to make the payments. It stated that the company has a legal personality and financial liability separate from its owner, and that the case file contained no evidence showing that the company's payments represented a loan granted by the plaintiff to his son-in-law.
The court stressed that the marital disputes between the couple and the daughter's divorce proceedings did not, in themselves, constitute evidence that the funds paid towards the villa purchase were a loan that had to be repaid.
Concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the source of the alleged debt and the defendant's liability for it, the court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses.