چکیده:
The brief composition of Article 265 of the Iranian Civil Code, not only is resulted in different interpretations regarding this Article, but also has caused the issuance of distinct judgments by the courts. Owing to this fact, setting up a unified in order to avoid confusion among the parties to a certain case, the courts and lawyers has become an undeniable necessity. In this research, through resorting to doctrine, the views relating to the foregoing Article are studied and analyzed and it is attempted to introduce the view among the existing ones which is more compatible with laws, custom and case law of the courts is Iran. Also, thorough a comparative approach, it is tried to study the procedure in the UK legal system and by means of employing the advantages of this system and contrasting it with the legal system governing the country, express a solution for ending this fragmentation in judgments. In the other side, because of the undeniable role of Article 1235 of French Civil Code in the codification of Article 265 of Iranian Civil Code (Many of the lawyers believe that Article 265 of Iranian Civil Code is an incomplete adaptation of Article 1235 of French Civil Code), the existing views as to these two Articles would be expressed. At the end of the study it is seen that in accordance with the majority standpoint, delivering a property to another person is not the presumption for indebtedness, while according the Islamic jurisprudents in case of disagreement between the giver and receiver of the property, the claim of the giver is preferred.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Moreover, it seems that in Iranian law, considering rational and customary evidence, Article (265) of the Civil Code indicates the creation of a presumption of indebtedness for the giver of the property or a similar aspect, whereas Imami jurists, in the discussion of dispute between the giver and the receiver, have considered the word of the giver to take precedence, and in the English legal system too, it seems 58 that the judicial practice considers payment as a presumption of indebtedness in the first instance, but this issue does not mean the impossibility of proving the contrary.
The viewpoint that Article (265) of the Civil Code indicates the non-indebtedness of the giver of the property Proponents of this view believe: In interpreting this article for the restitution of property, it is sufficient for the claimant to prove their previous ownership of the property in the possession of another, because: First: The wording of Article (265) cannot be interpreted more than this, which is that the appearance of the delivery of property is that it was not gratuitous, but this does not mean that giving the property appears to indicate the intention and purpose of debt repayment or serves as a presumption of the giver's indebtedness to the receiver.
However, the fact that for the recovery of what has been paid, the giver of the property must provide evidence of their non-indebtedness, or the receiver must prove their claim to justify their refusal to return the aforementioned property, is a meaning that remains silent in Article (1235) of the French Civil Code, and inevitably, to answer it, one must refer to legal rules and principles.
(
, 
, 
)
