The parties' arguments:
The plaintiff's claims:
- This lawsuit focuses on a request to enforce the sale transaction by means of approximate execution theory. The prosecution details the conditions for the approximate execution, and why they are fulfilled in our case. According to Hajj, the Supreme Court did not rule on its own based on the approximate theory of execution in light of the fact that Jareis and his successor did not give their consent to this. Therefore, and in light of the Supreme Court's further ruling that the judgment does not detract from any future proceeding between Haj and Jarais's estate, Haj filed this lawsuit. In addition, while conducting the proceedings in the District Court, Jereys did not object to the fulfillment of the sale agreement.
- According to Hajj, Jereis has registered rights to 19,175/786048 parts and another 128/5 of the total rights in the plot, which constitute an area of 780 square meters. According to him, there is no impediment to carrying out the sale transaction approximately. It was further argued that the defendants did not meet the burden of proof regarding contradictory transactions that prevent the execution of the transaction approximately, and this was determined in the previous proceeding in the District Court. It was argued that the Supreme Court ruled that in order to carry out the sale transaction, the array of rights in the plot must first be regulated, in light of the claims of conflicting transactions. Therefore, the plaintiff added to the claim Jerreis's brothers and sisters, who are registered as the owners of the rights in the plot, and the Kfar Yasif Local Council (hereinafter: "Council"), in respect of which it is alleged that it acquired rights in a plot that has not yet been registered. The rights of third parties who have purchased rights have already been registered, and therefore they are not required parties for the proceeding. The plaintiff further claims that he is not aware of other transactions that are alleged in part that are not registered. If any contradictory transaction is presented, the plaintiff will claim that the sale transaction is preferable to it. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to own an area of 609 square meters out of Jersey's registered rights, in accordance with the sale transaction and the approximate execution theory, for the purpose of doing justice and by virtue of any law.
Defendant 1's claims:
- According to defendant 1, the previous proceedings that took place in the District Court and the Supreme Court were not brought to its attention. However, it was explained to her that in the District Court's ruling, she was instructed to return the money paid by Haj in exchange for the purchase of Lot 17/21, and this was approved by the Supreme Court. Defendant 1 claims that a review of the registration of the land does indeed show that Jereys is registered as the owner of the rights claimed in the land, but in light of the fact that he did not share with her everything related to the land, she does not know the "meaning and essence" of the registered rights. In its summaries, defendant 1 added that the District Court ruled that interest and linkage should be added to the restitution amount, from the date of payment until the actual date of restitution.
In the statement of defense that she filed, defendant 1 claimed that the rulings in the judgments in the previous proceeding constituted an act of court and created an estoppel against her. According to defendant 1, Jereis did not inform her of the existence of the transaction. Jereys was interrogated in a proceeding that took place in the previous proceeding, and the door was open for the parties to question him about everything, including the approximate execution of the sale transaction. She also added in her summaries the argument that the cancellation of the sale transaction and with it the obligation to return the funds received from the transaction, contradict the provision of approximate performance relief. If the court orders an approximate execution, it will be obligated both to execute approximate and to return the funds, which together violate her rights.