Munir's Claims of Contradictory Rights
- Hajj argues, regarding According to the defendants' claim regarding "internal calculations between the brothers", that there is an act of court due to the District Court's decision in the previous proceeding. Alternatively, the same conclusion, reached by the court in an earlier proceeding, should be reached, that the defendants did not meet the burden of proof to prove that Jereys did not have registered rights in the land. According to the plaintiff, all the conditions for the silencing of the company are met, and the company was decided as the main company between the parties in the previous proceeding. In this proceeding, no new evidence was submitted for which a different conclusion must be reached. These are oral "calculations" that did not end with the registration and are based on the testimony of Munir, whose Supreme Court opinion on its part in the ambiguity that was created was expressed in its judgment. According to the plaintiff, Munir's cross-examination revealed that he was unreliable when he contradicted himself. In addition, his cross-examination revealed a pattern of conducting counter-transactions, without registration or even an attempt to deny some of them. The defendants' claim that the sisters agreed to transfer their share of the land to the brothers was not proven. This claim was supported only by Munir's affidavit and the sisters were not summoned to testify.
- The Law of Munir's Claims toPreference over Hajj, in light of Reckoning between him and the deceased Jerryce, To be rejected.
In accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the Real Estate Law, which deals with conflicting transactions, in order for Munir to succeed in his claims, and to prevail over Hajj, he must show that these rights are a "transaction" in real estate . Section 9 of the Real Estate Law constitutes the normative framework for competition between conflicting real estate transactions. An argument that one of the transactions is null and void (e.g., a transaction for the sake of appearances), or that it no longer exists (e.g., it was lawfully canceled), or that it did not come into existence (e.g., due to non-fulfillment of suspension conditions) leads to the conclusion that no two transactions are contradictory to each other at all (see: Civil Appeal 10148/05 Teddy Jerusalem in Tax Appeal v. Bracha Katz-Shivan (Nevo, March 15, 2010)). In this last matter, the court ruled that the previous transaction had been abandoned and ceased to exist, and therefore there was no need to invoke the laws of competition between conflicting transactions under section 9 of the Real Estate Law, let alone the basis of good faith of the late purchaser. In such a situation, the transaction that was abandoned is no longer an obstacle to registering the rights of the other purchaser.