In their summaries, the defendants claim that all the witnesses who testified confirmed that it was the council that paved the way for the approach. According to them, this proves that there was a proposal on the part of all the brothers and acceptance by the council in the behavior. The plaintiff also knew that the council had paved the road (which serves it) by virtue of the brothers' relinquishment of this part of the land in favor of the council.
- The agreement with the council is not without difficulties. The agreement was not signed by the local council, and no evidence was presented that it was approved by the council's officials. However, it was proven that the parties acted according to him, the council actually paved the roads, and Hajj knew when he first purchased the rights that it was a road. However, as I will determine below, this determination has no bearing on the issue of the paving of roads in part, whether with respect to the private road or with respect to the statutory road. The plots in Plan M/8 designated for roads (Plot 20/21 and Plot 21/21) will remain as roads, whether the ownership of them remains registered in the name of any of the owners of the plot or whether the rights therein are transferred to the Council. I have also reached the conclusion that this determination does not prevent the registration of the rights deriving from the transaction in the name of Hajj despite the provisions for the roads.
I am of the opinion that it is possible to transfer rights to the extent of 609 square meters from the name of Jeris in the name of Hajj without any harm to the provision for roads, whether by private or statutory road, regardless of in whose name the plots designated for roads will be registered in accordance with the Partition Plan M/8. In its summaries, the Council does not claim competition between the rights that will be allocated to the statutory road and the rights of Hajj, but rather relates to this framework and focuses its arguments only on everything related to the private road (see: paragraph 25 of the Council's summaries). The provision for the statutory road is by virtue of an expropriation in accordance with Outline Plan C/4288 that applies to the plot, and Hajj is presumed to know about it, whether when he purchased the rights for the first time from Munir or when he purchased the rights for the second time from Jerais, although this knowledge does not add or detract from the need to set aside for the roads. Later on, another question may arise, namely, who should bear this separation: are the brothers in equal parts or are all the owners of the plot? This question is not a matter for the proceedings here and is supposed to be decided in the framework of the claim for dissolution of partnership that must be taken in the future. If it is determined that all the owners will bear this provision, it will be necessary to award balance payments, a remedy that is under the jurisdiction of a liquidation court.
- As for the private road, which is an area of 616 square meters, in accordance with the Partition Plan M/8, it was marked as Plot 20/21. Hajj knew about this method when he first purchased the rights from Munir, when the sale was based on this plan. As determined in the previous proceeding, Haj even relied on the Partition Plan M/8 when submitting the application for a building permit. In accordance with the Partition Plan M/8 the owners of the private road are Jerrys and his brother Hani. Therefore, Hajj is forbidden to dispute the very existence of a private path (if he wishes to disagree with it in the future). An argument on his part that all the owners are supposed to bear the risk of this affair and not only Jereys and my brother ultimately relates to balance payments, although it is difficult in light of the reliance of all the owners on the distribution plan M/8 as claimed by defendants 1-10, and as claimed by the defendants who were recently added as detailed above. However, I do not need to rule on this claim in the framework of the present lawsuit, and it will be decided in a claim for dissolution of the partnership
Jereis has rights in the scope of 780 square meters, and if we reduce its share in the private way, in accordance with the agreement with the Council in the scope of 128 square meters, Jereis will retain rights in the scope of 652 square meters, which exceeds Jerais's undertaking to transfer 609 square meters to Hajj in accordance with the agreement between them.