Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
PhD student, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
2
Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, IranAnd Assistant Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Ahwaz Faculty of Petrol
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Quranic and Hadith Sciences, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract
According to Article 308 of the Civil Code, "usurpation is the domination of the rights of others, as aggression and proving iodine on property without permission is also" in the rule of usurpation. " The reason for calling such seizures "in the rule of usurpation" is because, firstly: the elements that exist for usurpation are not complete here; Second: The nature and meaning of the following article 308 BC is not the same as the beginning of its article; Third: The legislator has asked to clarify the sentence of Article 308 below it. In fact, the two issues are fundamentally different and only have one thing in common. Therefore, we call the latter in the first sentence. This view, although it seems strong, is not comprehensive and obstructive. Considering that some instances of usurpation, especially in government titles, have criminal descriptions and punishments, but "in the sentence of usurpation" in some instances, The importance and necessity of the article is due to the fact that the differences between the ruling on usurpation and the ruling on usurpation have caused differences of opinion between jurists and jurists, expanding the scope of examples of "seizures under the ruling of usurpation" and differentiating in judicial proceedings. As a result, it can be stated that the establishment of the institution "in the sentence of usurpation" of Article 308 BC is not relevant in Iranian jurisprudence and law.
Keywords
Main Subjects
