M. G. Aubeelock v V. Aubeelock & Ors

1999 SCJ 382

1999 MR 199

RECORD NO.54525

(382)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:

M. G. Aubeelock

Plaintiff

v.

V. Aubeelock & Ors

Defendants

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff married defendant No. 1 in September 1993 in the Republic of

Seychelles under the system of legal community of goods and property. Before their

marriage defendant No. 1 was the owner of a portion of land situate at Route

Bassin, Quatre Bornes on which stands a residential building. It is not disputed that

in May 1994 the said property served as logement de la famille to the plaintiff

and defendant No. 1 when the latter sold it by notarial deed to his brother-in-law,

defendant No. 2, husband of his sister who is defendant No. 3.

The plaintiff is praying the Court to (1) decree as being null and void and of

no effect the sale of that property by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 and (2)

order defendant No. 2 to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs 500,000 as damages.

The question is whether defendant No. 1 could dispose of his bien propre

which was being used as the logement de la famille without the consent of his

wife.

Article 216 of the civil code provides as follows:

Les poux ne peuvent lun sans lautre disposer des droits par lesquels est assur le logement de la famille, ni des meubles dont il est garni.

Celui des deux qui na pas donn son consentement lacte peut en demander lannulation. Laction en nullit lui est ouverte dans lann e partir du jour o il a eu connaissance de lacte, sans pouvoir jamais tre intent e plus dun an apr s que le r gime matrimonial sest dissous.

Les dispositions du pr sent article ne sont pas applicables lorsque les poux ont opt pour le r gime l gal de s paration de biens r gi par les dispositions des articles 1475 1478.

Article 216 alin a 1 of our civil code is similar to article 215 alin a 3 of the

French Civil code. Provision is made to prevent a spouse from exercising his or her

rights over the property where the family actually lives in order to protect the

family from being forced to vacate. This provision binds even the spouse who owns

the property en propre unless the spouses are governed by a matrimonial r gime

of separation de biens as provided in our article 216 alin a 3 . No doubt that as

far as the bien propre of a spouse is concerned, the spouse remains the sole owner

thereof but he cannot exercise his rights to dispose of that property without the

consent of the other spouse if that property is being used as the logement de la

famille.

In Encyclop die Dalloz Civil IX R gimes matrimoniaux , I see the

following note:

186. Dans un texte remarquable . . . . les auteurs de la loi du 13 juillet 1965 ont d cid que les poux ne pourraient lun sans lautre, disposer des droits par lesquels le logement de la famille est assur , non plus que des meubles meublants le garnissant; celui des deux qui na pas donn son consentement lacte peut en demander lannulation, dans lann e partir du jour o il a eu connaissance de lacte, ou, sil la ignor jusqu la dissolution du r gime matrimonial, au plus tard dans lann e qui suit cette derni re (art. 215, al. 4, devenu al. 3 depuis la loi n o 75-617 du 11 juill . 1975)

192. En r gime de communaut , il ny a pas lieu de distinguer selon que limmeuble est commun ou propre, encore que larticle 1424 entre en concurrence avec larticle 215. Le cas ch ant, l poux qui na pas consenti aura int r t se recommander de ce texte plut t que de larticle 215, le d lai pour agir tant plus long

199. A coup s r sont vis s tous les actes de disposition: ventes, renonciations (par ex., un droit au maintien dans les lieux), constitution dhypoth que (Civ. 1 re 17 nov. 1981, Bull. Civ. I, n o 340), constitution de gage

218. Larticle 215 r serve sa protection l poux dont le consentement tait requis; lui seul peut demander lannulation de lacte.

3

219. Le l gislateur ne pr cise pas si le juge dispose dun pouvoir dappr ciation. On en d duit que la nullit est de droit (J. PATARIN. Op. cit., no 80; A. PONSARD, op. cit., no 30). La r gle peut para tre bien lourde, du moins lorsquil sagit de lali nation dun meuble meublant quelconque; dautant que le tiers de bonne foi nest pas prot g par la pr somption de pouvoir tablie par larticle 222; non plus que par larticle 2279, lequel le garantit contre le d faut de propri t du vendeur et non point contre son manque de pouvoir

The rights of a spouse to dispose of his bien propre under article 1428

of the civil code has certain limitation when it concerns the protection of the family

interests. I see the following in Encyclop die Dalloz Civil III

Communaut :

726. Lorsquun poux passe un contrat ayant pour objet

lentretien du m nage ou l ducation des enfants, il engage les

propres de son conjoint tout autant que ses biens personnels et les biens

communs. Cette atteinte importante lautonomie des poux est la

ran on du d veloppement de leur cr dit.

727. Il y a mieux. Dans certains cas, l poux commun en

biens ne peut disposer seul, en d pit de l article 1428, dun bien

dont il est pourtant pleinement propri taire. Cest dabord ce qui

ressort de larticle 215: quand un droit assure le logement de la

famille, il ne peut tre ali n sans le concert des poux, m me sil

sagit dun droit propre. Il en va de m me des meubles meublants

garnissant le logement familial.

As to the residence which needs to be protected in that context, the following

note from Encyclop die Dalloz R gimes Matrimoniaux - is appropriate:

189. Faut-il en inf rer que le logement de la famille, au

sens de larticle 215, se confond n cessairement avec le domicile

conjugal? A bon droit, la Cour de cassation r pond par la n gative et

ajoute que les juges du fond d cident souverainement du lieu o se

trouve le logement principal des poux Tant il est vrai que

cest lendroit o la famille vit effectivement quil sagit de

prot ger. Le logement familial est au demeurant une notion de

fait et sa d termination appelle une appr ciation in concreto.

I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that the plaintiff and defendant No.

1 were in effect living in the property in question as the logement de la famille

when defendant No. 1 sold it to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff was not aware of

the aforesaid sale and was not present before the notary. In fact, in the said deed

of sale defendant No. 1 is stated to have declared that he was a widower by a first

marriage and had not re-married. Following the said sale defendants No. 2 & 3

5

issued proceedings to evict the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 from that property.

Defendant No. 2 pretended that he was not aware that defendant No. 1 was married

to the plaintiff, and I do not believe him. I note that defendant No. 1, who is

admittedly a heavy drinker, did affirm an affidavit at one stage in which he

purported to challenge the sale he made to defendant No. 2. Now that he is no

longer living with the plaintiff he is putting all the blame on her, saying that she

had her claws on him in the whole matter. In Court he finally stated that he

wanted to give the land and the house to his sister and brother-in-law, meaning the

other two defendants.

It was submitted by Counsel for defendants No. 2 and No. 3 that the sale

should not be annulled since there is no family as such as the plaintiff and

defendant No. 1 are now living separately.

In that connection the following from Encyclop die Dalloz R gimes

Matrimoniaux is pertinent

190. , larticle 215 faisant plus nettement r f rence au

logement de la famille, on admet quil peut jouer m me dans le cas

o les poux sont s par s de corps

On the facts placed before me I am satisfied that at the time the sale was

made, the property, subject-matter of the sale, was the logement de la famille

and defendant No. 1 could not exercise his rights to dispose of it, though it was his

bien propre, without the consent of his wife with whom he was married under the

system of communaut . The action was also initiated by the wife within the

legal delay. I further find that the defendants were of bad faith and the omission

to disclose in the deed of sale that defendant No. 1 was at the time married to the

plaintiff was deliberate. I consequently declare the said sale, which is registered and

transcribed in Vol. 2782 No. 67, as null and void.

As regards the damages claimed by the plaintiff, I make an order in the sum

of Rs 5,000 which I order defendant No. 2 to pay to her.

Defendants No. 2 and No. 3 did not pursue their counterclaim which is

dismissed.

The defendants to pay the costs of this case.

S. Peeroo

Judge

19 November 1999

For Plaintiff : Mr. Ho Chan Fong of Counsel

Mr. Attorney L. Gujadhur

7

For Defendant: Mr. J. Beeharry of Counsel

Mr. Attorney M. Conhyedoss

RECORD NO.54525 (382)IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUSPlaintiffDefendantsJUDGMENT