The "apartment" was sold to the plaintiff On April 7, 2009 for a sum of ILS 172,000 as described above. Two appraisals were conducted for the "apartment" by Tefahot Bank for the purpose of assessing its value. The first report was prepared On April 14, 2004 According to it, the value of the "apartment" was estimated at ILS 171,000, and the second On April 30, 2008 According to him, the value of the "apartment" was estimated at ILS 155,000. In the two appraisal reports mentioned above, it was noted that the building plans of the "apartment" were not examined, and in the second report it was explicitly recorded that the assessment was based on the assumption that the drawing of the condominium and the building permit were compatible with the "apartment" in question (see section 5 above).
Our eyes see that the real-time valuation of the apartment in 2004 and 2008 ranged from ILS 171,000 to ILS 155,000. This assessment was based on the fact that the apartment was a "residential apartment" for all intents and purposes, built in accordance with the plan of the condominium, and had a lawful building permit. These facts omit the basis for the defendants' claim that the apartment was sold to the plaintiff at a price lower than the market price as aforesaid.
- The defendants relied on the appraiser on their behalf, Mr. Haim Ben Ari, according to which it was determined, inter alia, that the value of the "apartment" as of the date of its purchase on April 7, 2009, as built without a permit and used as a warehouse as recorded in the condominium drawing, was within the limits of ILS 180,000.
However, in view of the fact that the two appraisals of Tefahot Bank, from 2004 and 2008, were made in real time, by an independent and authorized entity, with no interest other than receiving a real valuation of the "apartment" for the purpose of securing a mortgage loan provided by it, I saw fit to give preference to Mr. Ben-Ari's opinion.
- In light of the above, I am persuaded, to the extent necessary in this proceeding, that prior to the purchase of the "apartment", the plaintiff did not know about the planning status of the "apartment", including the lack of a lawful building permit in respect of it, and that the defendants concealed this fact from him before signing the sale agreement, despite their knowledge of it.
- Before concluding this chapter, I will address two arguments raised by the defendants.
The defendants claimed that the apartment was sold to the plaintiff's brother, Mr. Menachem, and therefore, the plaintiff has no right to stand up to the lawsuit.