In this context, I will note that the conduct of Munir and Jarais, insofar as it was in the matter, lacked good faith, and they laid the foundations for the "legal accident" that occurred afterwards with Hajj. The very fact that they did not reflect the calculation between them, to the extent that it is correct, caused the legal accident that Munir is now complaining about. Therefore, it is not possible to sever the connection between Munir and Jaris and allow Munir to raise a claim of internal accountability. In this case, it is appropriate to apply to Munir the rationale and spirit of the Ganz rule, and to impose on him the full risk of this conduct that caused a legal accident, by having Haj acquire the property (see: Civil Appeal 2643/97 Ganz v. British and Colonial Company Ltd., IsrSC 57(3) 385 (2003)).
- Munir claimed in his testimony in the previous proceeding that the partition plan M/8 was the written document that expressed the settlement between the brothers (p. 17, paragraph 19 of the transcript of January 24, 2024 in the previous proceeding) and that he had no other document. Haj refers to the M/8 Partition Plan and argues that it does not override the registration. Haj argues that the M/8 Partition Plan does not express the "reckoning," but rather that the reckoning was supposedly done in its light. In other words, a significant part of the calculation was done after the plan was signed. Haj further claims that the alleged transactions were made in contravention of the M/8 distribution plan. Thus, for example, Lot 21/1, which is registered in the plan in the name of Munir, was allegedly sold to a third party by Munir and Hani, which indicates that half of the rights in the lot belonged to Hani, contrary to what is written in the plan. With all due respect, it seems to me that in this context, Hajj's position is here. The Partition Plan M/8 cannot be viewed as an agreement that expresses the internal reckoning between the brothers. It cannot be understood from it that whenever rights are sold to any of Munir's shares, it is in fact the sale of the rights of Jereys or another brother, or a combination of both.
- Above the need, I would like to point out that In accordance with the District Court's ruling in the previous proceeding, Hajj was charged with bad faith that he knew that there was no Jereys has rights to the plot Specific Sold, i.e. plot 17/21. As determined in paragraph 16 of the judgment, Jerry's "He pretended... To transfer to Mr. Mahmoud rights that are not his own and which he is unable to transfer". Later, in the previous lawsuit, the District Court clarified its conclusion when it held: "In other words, in the sale transaction, Mr. Jereis tried to transfer rights to Mr. Mahmoud On a specific lot In Plot 21, without the consent of the other owners, Mr. Jerryas had, if any, at that time only registered rights in the partnership together with other registered owners in each Plot 21. This was done without a consensual distribution that ended in registration at that time." (Paragraph 16 of the judgment, second paragraph). The District Court further ruled in the previous lawsuit that "... The plaintiffs [not] have met the burden of proof placed on them to prove that Mr. Jerryce has no rights registered in section 21. This is certainly true when all the distribution agreements that were claimed to have been reached between the brothers after the death of their parents, including the sisters' agreement to waive what they are entitled to as heirs, did not end in registration. The same applies to the transactions that are alleged to have been carried out in paragraph 11 of Mr. Munir's affidavit (with the exception of the transactions with Mr. Mahmoud)." (paragraph 18 of the judgment)
Regarding the good faith of Jarees andHajj, it was determined in the judgment in the previous proceeding that "...Both parties knew or should have known that Mr. Jerryce had no rights in the specific lot 21/17, or rights in the specific 609 square meters within Plot 21, and therefore he was unable to transfer these rights defined in the sale transaction to another." (paragraph 21 of the judgment) and later in paragraph 22: "... Mr. Mahmoud also knew at the time of the sale transaction that this was a plot in which the rights belonged to all the brothers jointly and without a specific official division. He had in his possession many documents that he used, the contents of which testified that... Mr. Jerryce had no rights in the 21/17 lot...".