It was also determined that Jerais's rights, which were transferred to him from Rehav, were transferred in the registry only on August 19, 2014, while the sale transaction was made on August 4, 2014. According to the ruling, Jaris himself admitted that he never had the exclusive possession of Lot 17/21 and that he prepared the partition proposal on his own. The court further ruled that the remedy requested was a remedy of division by way of dissolution of a partnership in the land, and no agreement to the partition plan M/8 of all the owners of the rights in the plot was proven.
- Haj appealed these rulings to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal 1338/19), arguing that the judgment that was given should be annulled, and that the transaction between him and Grace should be determined. In a proceeding that took place in the Supreme Court, Haj clarified his argument, arguing that insofar as the transaction could not be carried out by transferring Lot 17/21 in his name, it should be carried out in unspecified parts of the plot.
The Supreme Court ruled that Haj did not dispute that as long as there was no agreed division of the plot, he could not purchase a certain area of the plot. In addition, Haj relied on the Partition Plan M/8 when purchasing Lot 13/21 from Monir, and applying for a building permit for his house on this lot. It was further determined that there was difficulty in granting this relief to Hajj, in light of the fact that this was not the transaction that was made. To the extent that Jerrys had agreed to change the sale transaction, there might have been room to obtain the consent of the other owners, but Jerrys and his heir, who stepped into his shoes, did not respond to the appeal. It was clarified that the District Court did not rule on the question of whether Jereys had rights in the land and if he had left, what area he remained. It was held that the sale transaction as it was made could not stand, since it was made in respect of a certain area, without the consent of the other owners of the plot, contrary to the partition plan M/8, of which Haj was aware of, and even acted in accordance with it, and without the involvement of all the relevant parties. Finally, the Supreme Court noted that if it had been determined in a legal proceeding that Hajj was entitled to enforcement of the sale transaction in approximately indefinite parts, it might have been appropriate to leave the warning note that was written in his favor intact.