a survey of proving falsity of oath in the iranian and french laws

in the legal proceeding, should an oathbe taken in case oflack of proof on the part of plaintiff, it would causeextinction of the claim of the plaintiff. now, if it wasproved that the oath has been false when the definitejudgment has been issued, we encounter the problem ofunlawfulness of reversal of judgment of the judge injurisprudence and that of validity of what is judged in theiranian and french laws.majority of jurists hold that hadiths reveal that oath of thedefendant renders all rights of the plaintiff as to thedisputed property null, but should oath of the defendant befalse he must naturally return the disputed property to theplaintiff. in case of confession of the oath taker tofalsehood of his oath, he is legally obliged to return theproperty and all rights of the plaintiff, including the rightto claim again, will return.in the french law, announcing falsehood of the oath afterthe verdict has been issued is considered among facets ofre-trial, and in the iranian law it can be treated as aninstance of trickery, deception, and a facet of re-trial.