Defendants 2-5 and 11:
- At the beginning of the statement of defense on behalf of the aforementioned defendants, it was argued that the statement of claim on its face does not reveal cause of action against them. The defendants further claimed that there was no written agreement proving the existence of the sale transaction in accordance with the provisions Real Estate Law. In addition, they argued in fact a court that included estoppel of cause of action and estoppel of a company.
The defendants further argued that the sale transaction does not meet the requirements of the Contracts Law , including the requirements for discretion and certain discretion. The transaction that is sought to be enforced in this lawsuit does not correspond to the offer and acceptance that existed in the sale transaction. In the sale transaction, the plaintiff purchased land designated for agriculture, while in this lawsuit he seeks to obtain rights in the plaintiff in the land that consists of plots designated for agriculture and plots for residential designation. The sale transaction cannot be enforced in a manner that does not correspond to the wishes of the parties. According to the defendants, Haj should have filed a financial claim against Jarais, where he would claim his direct and indirect damages from the cancellation of the sale transaction in the previous proceeding in the District Court.
According to the defendants, the judgments in the previous courts ruled that the sale transaction was null and void, since it was not proven that Jaris had rights in the land and that the sale transaction could not withstand the form it was made. According to them, previous real estate transactions were made that prevailed over the sale transaction (which was allegedly canceled), and that Hajj knew or should have known that the transaction with Jerais could not be executed.
The defendants further claim that Hajj did not include all the registered owners of the land who may be harmed as a result of this lawsuit.
- According to the defendants, in terms of rights to the plot, it was agreed between Najib's heirs that all the sisters would relinquish their shares in favor of their male brothers in equal shares. The defendants further claim that in light of the alleged transactions, the land was divided into 22 lots, with 1778 square meters set aside for the purpose of two ways: one approved according to the zoning plan of Kfar Yasif (hereinafter: "The statutory way") and the second is an "internal" way between the fields (hereinafter: "The Private Way"). The area of the statutory road was taken from all the landowners according to its relative share. The area of the private road was taken from the parts of Jereys and Hani. The partition plan M/8 was signed by all the owners, including Jerrys. In order to carry out the aforementioned plan, in 2008, all the landowners signed an agreement with the council to transfer the area of the private road to it.
Decision and Discussion
- After considering the arguments of the parties, I came to the conclusion that the lawsuit should be accepted. The main dispute to be decided is whether Jereys has enough rights left in order to carry out the deal with Hajj, even if only approximately.