First Deal
Agreement Gift As of February 5, 2020
1,059 sqm
Deal Second
Transaction Sell Dated December 1, 2022 (3,187 sqm)
+ Marei (1,059 sqm)
+ Hussein (1,59 m2)
Fourth Transaction
Agreement Sale as of July 1, 2023 (3,187 sqm) Deal Third
Mu'taz (1,059 sqm) Agreement Sell Dated February 15, 2023.
+ Mustafa (706 sqm) Irrevocable Power of Attorney 3.12.22
+ Abdalhadi (706 sqm) 3,187 sqm
+ Subhi (706 sqm)
Irrevocable Power of Attorney
dated November 30, 2022
The parties' arguments
- The plaintiffs' version and their factual arguments, and consequently also the legal ones, changed substantially during the proceeding, and while the main argument in the statement of claim related to the competition between the rights, the plaintiffs focused the argument in their summaries on the validity of the contrary transaction. This change, beyond the procedural aspects relating to the expansion of the façade, has implications for the credibility of the versions and, to a certain extent, on the various burdens imposed on the parties.
- The statement of claim dealt with the description of the contradictory transactions and the plaintiffs' argument that their right is preferable to Mu'taz's, Said's right, and the right of all those who come after them, since they were the first in time and since the sale transaction between Mu'taz and Sa'id was madeafter the plaintiffs had already purchased the land. Regarding the validity of the contrary transaction, the plaintiffs' arguments amounted to the claim that when Ali was asked why he had sold his rights in a second and contradictory transaction, he replied that he had been confused and had made a mistake and that he had not received an exhaustive explanation from Attorney Omer Naamneh, who prepared the agreement on December 1, 2022.
- The lawsuit further claims that on July 1, 2023, Mu'taz, after entering into the contrary transaction, sold his rights in the land to Sa'id, together with other sellers, in order to make it difficult to restore the situation to Keddam. The late transaction between Sa'id and Basel Badarneh was also made in order to make it difficult to restore the situation to its previous state and to prevent the plaintiffs from exercising their property and rights in the land. With regard to good faith and the knowledge of the defendants or any of them about the gift transaction, the plaintiffs argued that Adv. Omer Naamneh, who represents defendant 2 in the proceeding here, was the one who prepared the agreement of December 1, 2022 (the second transaction) and he knew or should have known that this agreement contradicted the gift agreement of February 15, 2020 (the first transaction). In the lawsuit, the element of knowledge of Adv. Naamneh was not factually substantiated. The plaintiffs did not raise any additional claim against any of the defendants in the matter.
- The plaintiffs petitioned for a declaratory judgment according to which the sale agreement dated December 1, 2022, between Ali and Mu'taz, is null and void and the gift agreement prevails, according to which all the transactions made after the gift agreement are null and void and withdraw from the gift agreement.
- Defendant 2, Sa'id, denied in the statement of defense the claims raised by the plaintiffs. It was claimed that Mu'taz duly purchased Ali's rights and that Mu'taz subsequently sold the part he had purchased from Ali to Sa'id, and an agreement was made between the two, the transaction was reported, and the relevant parts were registered in Sa'id's name.
The defendant argued that the gift agreement should not be preferred over a sale agreement that has already been registered at the Land Registry Office. According to him, the transaction in which he purchased rights should be preferred, since he purchased the land based on the registration and in good faith, paid full consideration and the transaction ended with the registration. It was claimed that the sale transaction between Ali and Mu'taz was valid , and that Ali signed the agreement after its contents were explained to him and knew what he was signing