Defendant No. 19 claimed in his statement of defense that he had purchased his rights from a construction and development company in a tax appeal that owned the rights in the land. The company built a residential building on the land after receiving a building permit. Defendant 19 purchased an apartment in the building on April 23, 2010, and he paid full consideration for it. At the time of purchasing the apartment, he was not aware of any dispute and relied on the records in the Land Registry. Defendant 19 claims that he has no rivalry with the plaintiff. If the court accepts the claim, it is requested to determine that the company will be held responsible. Therefore, defendant 19 seeks to order the dismissal of the claim against him.
- Defendants 15-16 claim in the statement of defense that they purchased their rights in Lot 6/21 from Mr. Anad Khoury (Jerry's son) and that they are not connected to the dispute before me. The purchase was based on a signed sketch (an examination of it shows that it is a partition sketch M/8). Therefore, there is no reason to file a lawsuit against them.
Subsequently, in a notice submitted on November 2, 2025, they announced that if a decision on this claim does not affect them in any future lawsuit, they leave the decision to the court's discretion.
Defendant No. 28 is the heir of the late Meitri Haddad. On August 28, 2008, the deceased Meitari purchased Lot 5/21 from Monir with an area of 488 square meters in accordance with the Partition Drawing M/8. These rights were registered at the Land Registry Office. The present claim is for the approximate fulfillment of the agreement, by registering the plaintiff as a partner in the dispute and is not a claim for dissolution of partnership, which seeks to decide which of the two distribution agreements is correct. Defendant No. 28 is of the opinion that the partition agreement M/8 is correct and on the basis of this agreement he acquired rights in the plot. Defendant No. 28 raised the question as to why it was necessary to attach it. Therefore, defendant No. 28's position is that subject to the above comments, he has no objection to the claim.
- It appears that after this move, the arguments of defendants 1-11 that all the parties necessary for the decision in the claim were not joined, and this argument is removed from the discussion table. I will already say that this lawsuit will not affect the defendants who were recently added in terms of the scope of the rights registered in their names or in the roads set aside in the framework of M/8, when, as I will clarify below, a future dispute may arise in the framework of a claim for dissolution of partnership on the question of who should bear the burden of the separation of the roads and whether it will be necessary to award balance payments to any of the owners. This dispute, whatever it may be, is not necessary for the purpose of deciding the claim before me, I will not rule on it in the framework of this lawsuit, and I will not determine which of the two partition plans is binding, if any, and it will probably be decided in a claim for dissolution of partnership after hearing all the parties.
The Consequences of the Judgments in the Previous Proceeding
- Defendant No. 1 argues that the judgments in the previous proceeding established binding factual and legal determinations, and thus there is a final judicial decision that was duly made and is binding. The District Court's ruling, which is a final ruling, canceled the deal and ordered the return of the money Hajj paid to Jerais. The Supreme Court left the judgment in place. This argument is raised in order to block Hajj's claim for the approximate execution of the transaction. The question arises whether Hajj's lawsuit should be dismissed due to estoppel of grounds?
I do not believe that the judgments in the previous proceeding establish an estoppel of cause of action that prevents Hajj from filing a claim to enforce the sale agreement in the near future. Before I elaborate on the merits of the case before me, I will briefly review the legal situation, on the issue of estoppel of cause, in cases where there are two consecutive proceedings, in which the roles of the parties are reversed, as in our case; that is, the plaintiff in the first proceeding becomes a defendant in the second proceeding, and the defendant in the first proceeding becomes a plaintiff in the second proceeding.