A mother has filed a lawsuit against her son, seeking to annul a property gift she had previously granted him, alleging that she was coerced into doing so.
According to the case records, the mother of the defendant filed a lawsuit against her son, demanding the annulment of the property gift contract she had granted him. She claims that the contract violates the conditions of consent due to her son’s coercion, forcing her to register the gift against her will.
The plaintiff claims that her son, the defendant, coerced her into creating a property gift, which was her house, by threatening her. She states that he threatened her, causing her to fear for her safety and forcing her to appear in court to complete the gift registration. She reluctantly obeyed and gifted him the property under duress, not by choice. Additionally, she claims that the defendant is a drug user and is currently serving a prison sentence for the crime of killing his brother.
The court heard the case in its sessions, with both the plaintiff and the defendant present in person. The defendant denied his mother’s claim of coercion, stating that the gift was valid and without coercion. He further claimed that he compensated the plaintiff with 28,000 dinars. However, the plaintiff denied receiving any compensation from the defendant for the gift contract.
Consequently, the court ordered, before ruling on the merits of the case, that the lawsuit be referred for investigation to prove the plaintiff’s claim through witness testimony that the defendant pressured and threatened her to gift him the property against her will and out of fear of him due to his character and drug use. The investigation should also establish that she did not receive any financial compensation for the gift. The defendant has the right to deny the plaintiff’s claims in the same manner.
The court heard the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses, including her son, brother, and daughter. Their testimonies agreed that the defendant had forced her to make the gift, and they were unaware of why she had not informed them of this earlier. They also stated that they had heard from their mother that he threatened to burn down the house if she did not gift it to him.
On the other hand, the defendant’s witnesses, residents of the property, stated that they had never seen the defendant in an abnormal state or assaulting the plaintiff verbally or physically. They described him as respectful towards his mother, taking care of her, taking her for treatment, bringing her medication, fulfilling her needs, and constantly keeping her company. The defendant’s wife also testified that the plaintiff had signed the gift willingly and with her consent.
Since the documents showed that the plaintiff had created a valid gift for the defendant on the property she owned through an officially sealed document, being a close relative, and she does not deny creating it or challenging its documents, but claims that the gift is invalid due to a defect in consent, which is her claim of being coerced by the defendant, who denies this, the court found that the gift contract is valid.
The court did not find the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses reliable, as they was based on guesswork and hearsay regarding the occurrence of coercion without any sensory knowledge or certainty of its occurrence. It was clear from the witnesses’ statements that the defendant had a good reputation and was very kind to his mother, which, in the court’s view, negates the main reasons for the coercion claimed by the plaintiff.
Therefore, based on the evidence and circumstances of the case, the court found that the plaintiff, after creating a valid and complete gift, regrets her previous gift and is remorseful, not coerced, for the defendant’s continued ownership of the property. Both of these reasons do not prevent the completion of the gift contract or invalidate it. Therefore, her request is based on an incorrect legal and religious basis, and the court ruled to reject it and charge the plaintiff with the cost of the lawyer’s fees.
