الرافدین للحقوق (Sep 2023)
Judicial verdict as a source for the right of ownership
Abstract
Generally, jurisprudence has not agreed to define judicial verdicts. Rather, jurists have taken this mission into two ways. Some defined it widely to be all decisions and resolutions destined to solve disputes raised in front of specialised authorities. Others defined it narrowly and accurately to be merely confined to court decisions while solving disputes raised by the parties of each case aiming to have a definite verdict from these courts to have this dispute solved. Similarly, four trends have tried to conceptualise court verdicts, each has depended upon a specific criterion to do so. Some counted on more than one criterion at the same time such as; formal, objective, and hybrid criterions. Additionally, another fourth trend has considered the function and effects of the same verdict as a criterion to conceptualise this judicial verdict. The judiciary verdict has a vital role to establish the right of ownership. This in turn takes two dimensions. On the one hand, the first exists when the verdict has a role with the sources of the right of ownership. Then this verdict becomes a means that establishes the right of ownership for an individual within a definite source among the other sources of this right. Evidently, this can be demonstrated within; the case of laying the bidding over a single partner through the division of common ownership by courts, or the case of laying the bidding over the possessor through implementing a real-estate mortgage. On the other hand, the second dimension can be illustrated when the verdict becomes a direct source for the right of ownership while all other sources are not in existence. Subsequently, the verdict is definitely becoming the direct source for the right of ownership. For instance, the cases of rescinding a real-estate sale, judicial acquisition, pre-emption, and the adhesion of a removable thing with another one in some cases.
Keywords
