Help Documents
However, the documents the respondent also did not differ exemplary design. During the hearing revealed the following. (1) According to Help the Archives Division of Administration District Decision on granting the defendant with (obscene word) of land in 1993 in the archives does not appear. (2) There is no information about the household respondent and books relevant municipal education. (3) On the basis of certificates issued by the registry office, the defendant at the time of the land (in 1993) wore her husband's surname, while the decree issued by her maiden name. The witness, who served as head of administration of the village council of the Moscow region, confirmed the signing of legal documents belonging to the plaintiff, and could not explain whose signature is on documents of title defendant. (4) More addition, the court found that the seal on the documents the respondent old model, at the time of issuance of these documents are no longer used.
On the other hand, despite the inadequate implementation of the local administration to work with documents on which the court stated in its decision during the trial established that plaintiff is taken into account in pohozyaystvennoy book as the owner of (obscene word) of land. Having evaluated the evidence, the court came to concluded spuriousness of legal documents submitted by the respondent. Based on the testimony of witnesses and other evidence (an order of bringing to administrative responsibility, information about payment of land tax), the court concluded that it was plaintiff in 1991 actually used the land, bore the burden of the land owner, while the defendant began to use it in 2007, the Court also pointed out that the administration of the village council had no legal grounds for granting the defendant with (obscene word) of land in 1993, as previously (in 1991) he was granted the plaintiff.