Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
P.H.D Graduate of Islamic Jurisprudence and Law, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2
frofessor of the Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought (Corresponding Author)
3
P.H.D Graduate of Public Law, Tehran Research Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In the term of jurisprudence and jurisprudence of Iran, individuals have the ability to seize property if they have permission to do so; Like the owner and the lawyer. Therefore, if the domination of individuals is initially accompanied by permission, but then the owner wants to remove the domination, but this domination is not lifted in possession, "in the rule of usurpation" has been achieved. Accordingly, jurists and jurists have introduced cases in cases of usurpation as the beginning of legal and legitimate domination but the continuation of which is against the right. Moreover, if the domination of the right is not done by force and oppression and the person in charge is ignorant of his unworthiness, no real or genuine usurpation has taken place; Therefore, in such cases, they say: In the ruling of usurpation, it is similar to usurpation or usurpation of a ruling. The appearance of the second clause of Article 308 of the Civil Code, in order for the first clause to be valid, requires a difference in meaning and conformity in the rulings; However, it is observed that some instances of usurpation, especially in government titles, have a criminal and punitive description, while "in the verdict of usurpation" in some instances, such as a corrupt bond, do not have a criminal description. In the sense that usurpation and the ruling on usurpation, in addition to contrasting in concept, "in the rule of usurpation" in jurisprudence and Iranian law is irrelevant.
Keywords
