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 lanne partir du jour o il a eu connaissance de lacte, sans
pouvoir jamais tre intente plus dun an apr s que le r gime
matrimonial sest dissous.
Les dispositions du prsent article ne sont pas applicables lorsque
les poux ont opt pour le rgime lgal de sparation de biens r gi par
les dispositions des articles 1475 1478.

Article 216 alina 1 of our civil code is similar to article 215 alina 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 alina 3. No doubt that as

3
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 dcid 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 lanne 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 lanne qui suit cette dernire (art.
215, al. 4, devenu al. 3 depuis la loi n o 75-617 du 11 juill.
1975)

192.
En rgime 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
chant, lpoux qui na pas consenti aura intrt se recommander
de ce texte plutt que de larticle 215, le d lai pour agir tant plus
long

199. A coup sr sont viss tous les actes de disposition: ventes,

renonciations (par ex., un droit au maintien dans les lieux),
constitution dhypothque (Civ. 1 re 17 nov. 1981, Bull. Civ. I,
n o 340), constitution de gage
218. Larticle 215 rserve sa protection l poux
dont le consentement tait requis; lui seul peut demander lannulation
de lacte.

219. Le lgislateur ne prcise pas si le juge dispose dun

pouvoir dapprciation. On en dduit que la nullit est de droit (J.
PATARIN. Op. cit., no 80; A. PONSARD, op. cit., no 30). La rgle
peut paratre bien lourde, du moins lorsquil sagit de lali nation
dun meuble meublant quelconque; dautant que le tiers de bonne
foi nest pas protg par la prsomption de pouvoir tablie par
larticle 222; non plus que par larticle 2279, lequel le garantit
contre le dfaut de proprit 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

Communaut :

726.

Lorsquun poux passe un contrat ayant pour objet

lentretien du mnage ou lducation 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

ranon du dveloppement de leur crdit.

727.

Il y a mieux.

Dans certains cas, lpoux commun en

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

dont il est pourtant pleinement propritaire.

Cest dabord ce qui

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

III

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

sagit dun droit propre.

Il en va de mme 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 infrer que le logement de la famille, au

sens de larticle 215, se confond ncessairement avec le domicile

conjugal?

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

ajoute que les juges du fond dcident 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
protger.

Le logement familial est au demeurant une notion de

fait et sa dtermination appelle une apprciation 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

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

190.

is pertinent

, larticle 215 faisant plus nettement rfrence au

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

o les poux sont spars de corps
On the facts placed before me I am satisfied that at the time the sale was

7
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.
legal delay.

The action was also initiated by the wife within the

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

For Defendant: Mr. J. Beeharry of Counsel

Mr. Attorney M. Conhyedoss