Studying the nature of unjustified possession in the legal system of Iran and India

In all the legal systems of the world, specific legal requirements have been developed for the purpose of overseeing various forms of financial education, and in some cases, non-compliance with those requirements has become a criminal aspect. In Iranian law, there is a rule called "possession" which is inspired by French civil law, which is based on the prohibition of unlawful possession and education without the legal authorization of wealth (Katouzian, 1374: 546).Another country that has put this principle into practice is India. In the legal system of India, the Law of Contracts, whose effectiveness is not covered by English law, has laid down general principles governing the performance of contracts, thereby preventing any contracting and having persons without legal or contractual cause It's done. The principle of prohibition of unjust possession in the Indian legal system often revolves around the Central Commodity and Customs Act (Amendment) of 1991, and in particular the Contract Law of 1872, in Articles 68 to 72, requiring state judges to deal with Regarding the type of case, the said materials base their proceedings on a case unless the case has a criminal record that is decided by a judge, depending on the type and quality of the offense (Madhu Sweta, 2018: 2).There are many parallels in the rule of law in Iranian and Indian law, the origin of which resembles that of the origin of the rule, which has emerged in the legal systems of European countries. Indian lawyers and lawyers in the early 18th century had no knowledge of unjust ownership, and later with the drafting of the Contract Law in 1872, the Indian legislator, following British law, made this principle part of his subject matter (Kothari, 2012 : 6).

In order to carry out this research and to obtain the results of the research, one of the common methods of comparative method has been considered and it has been tried to compare and compare the views of Indian and Iranian legal systems and in terms of information gathering method of this library research. And is used as a quotation for direct quotation or researcher's impression of the material as indirect quotation. Like all library studies, it has been used to study books and articles and to refer to related sites and resources.

Discusion:

In any legal and economic system, it has predicted certain means and means of acquiring property and the transfer of wealth from one asset to another and the distribution of public property, the nature of which is due to the law. This point, in addition to being the focus of Iranian lawmakers' attention, has been the focus of Article 1 of the Indian Contracts Act, which has made any use and conclusion of a contract contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of the Contract Law illegal. Providing appropriate mechanisms for the excellence of the legal systems of the two countries and removing legal deficiencies requires re-examining and evaluating the concept of unjust and unjust possession in the legal system of Iran and India. According to Article 72 of the Indian Contracts Act, if one pays a person other than the denier who he considers to be dignified, he can withhold the payment provided that his mistake is due to fact, not the law. . This is documented in Indian law as unjust possession, the source of civil liability for the recipient, which was also fully taken into consideration by the legislator in Article 302 of the Iranian Civil Code, which led to the legal establishment of "improper performance" in this system. Iranian lawmaker in Article 265 BC and Indian lawmaker in Article 70 Contract Laws on "No Tax Exemption" stipulate that when one person pays money without giving title to another, he shall prevail Religion has done so. In this description, when someone gives money to someone who is not in fact indebted to him, he will have the right to repay what he has paid rightly, citing the legal provisions of the two countries.

The failure of Iranian scholars to pay attention to the origin of the rule has led many of them to refer to the loss and wrongdoing of many other writings, and this view has led to fundamental contradictions and controversies in the analysis of the rule and its provisions. Is. Whereas the former originated in Roman law and the latter originated in the old French law of 1804, during which time French law enumerated the grounds of marriage and thereby invalidated "without cause" or "illegitimate". But today many legal systems in the world and even the new French law, based on its Roman origin, interpret unjust enrichment as ethical rules based on the principle of judicial justice. In fact, this approach has a supervisory approach to the law, as opposed to having a concept that is understood to be incompatible with the legal standards of the means of education, and has little effect on it because another interpretation of the entity of finance False in Islamic jurisprudence.While it is well known that the focus of the rule in question is on unjust possession and on the principle of justice, the author's assessment is that Islamic law scholars and scholars have long argued for justice in the field of contracts and civil lawsuits. It is found in many jurisprudential books that jurists have accepted the principle of justice as the jurisprudential rule, and its function is that, as the case may be, the regulatory effect of the law is occasioned by this legal effect. It can be a cancellation of the transaction and sometimes a lack of influence and legal order. But in criminal matters one can invoke the principle of unfair possession because although both of its rules are non-harmful, in criminal matters the first condition is criminal offense and the nullity of the documentary transaction is the principle. Justice (or acquiescence) if it is accepted as void, is not enough to prove the offense and punish the perpetrator. There are many examples that are perfectly legitimate in contract terms, but are manifestly unfair, such as renting bank accounts, manipulating prices in the commodity market, etc.Although the legal systems of India and Iran, in compliance with other legal systems, have provided a good opportunity to expand the rule of fairness in the courts, but in the Indian criminal law on the basis that Indian jurists, "Compensation" is considered a form of contractual and non-criminal matter, a form of intimidation, as it has to be distinguished between damage to persons and damage to public property; Because these crimes result in disruptions to the normal process of society. Therefore, a crime which has two of the above mentioned dignities will result in an increase in the punishment. The Indian legislator considers the punishments to be a form of compensation, but it seems essential that the principle of non-compliance with the prohibition on unjust possession be found, and that the general aspect of the offense should also be addressed by the Supreme Court and the authorities. The Indian judiciary is considered to be a progressive author of the Iranian legislative procedure and it is suggested that the Indian legislator also follow the Iranian legislative procedure.