Family file (Haifa) 58512-10-24 S. v. H. - part 6

00

24. In this regard, no reference was presented regarding the notice of cancellation of the right, while the defendant's versions in this matter were different and variable and were contradicted by the evidence that was submitted:
25. Thus, the defendant claimed in the statement of defense that "immediately after the defendant signed the affidavit, he decided to retract his undertaking to give the land as a gift to the plaintiff and notified the plaintiff and defendant 2. The defendant repeated this statement unequivocally and unambiguously in two directions" (paragraph 25 of the statement of defense, see also what is stated in paragraphs 32-34 of the statement of defense).
26. In the affidavit of the main witness, the defendant made do with declaring that he had informed Attorney S. of the cancellation of the gift, and it was not stated that she had given such notice to the plaintiff herself.  Instead, he stated that the plaintiff "knew" of the withdrawal from the undertaking "on the date that the notice of withdrawal from the undertaking was given to her accordingly" and it was not for nothing that she did not approach the courts over the years or take action to register a warning note (paragraphs 6-8 of the appeal against the decision of the defendant's registrar).

• Finally, the defendant admitted in his interrogation that he had not informed the plaintiff anything about the cancellation of the transaction and had not even spoken to her about the matter, and that his notice was given at most orally, to Attorney S. only (see at p. 52, paras.  17-18 and at p.  53, lines 12-20 of the paragraph).

25. Attorney , on the other hand, did not provide any reference or even an exact date on which he allegedly notified the plaintiff of the cancellation of the gift by the defendant. On the contrary, Adv. S.  testified that he intended to update the plaintiff in a meeting he had scheduled with her for the purpose of signing an affidavit of cancellation of a gift, but the plaintiff ignored it for 12 years (at pp.  20, paras.  1-5).

Later on, Attorney S.  even confirmed that he had not personally informed the plaintiff of the cancellation of the gift (at pp.  27, paras.  1-7 of the Talmud), and instead informed the plaintiff: "The family path should come back to me, both to pay my fees and to sign the affidavit of H.The cancellation and I also planned at the meeting that she was supposed to come to her to explain to her what happened and to get her to sign the cancellation affidavit" (at p.  26, 4-7 of the Tam.  See also the testimony of Adv. S.  in this regard, at p.  26, paras.  10-37, and at p.  27, paras.  1-21 of the Constitution).  Attorney S.  also argued that the plaintiff's conduct shows that she reneged on her and canceled the transaction with the defendant (at p.  24, para.  11).  This is also the case with paragraphs 5-6 of Attorney S.'s statement of defense .

26. S. also testified that he made it clear to the defendant that the transaction could not be canceled in a unilateral proceeding and that the defendant must inform the plaintiff that she must come to sign an affidavit of cancellation of the transaction (p.  25, lines 22-39 and at p.  33 of the transcript) - there is no dispute that this was not done.

Nor was any evidence of the cancellation of the transaction with the tax authorities, with the documents that were submitted attesting to reports to the tax authorities and their conduct even months after the waiting agreement.

27. From the aforesaid, it appears that both the defendant and Adv. S. confirmed that they themselves did not give the plaintiff any notice regarding the cancellation of the gift transaction and did not prove in any way that this notice was given by another third party.
28. On the other hand, I was persuaded that the plaintiff relied on Adv. S. as her representative in the gift transaction to complete the registration of the rights, as authorized by the parties, and I found her testimony in this regard to be reliable (pp.  7, paras.  1-17 and at p.  10, paras.  23-39 of the Attorney General's Office).  This testimony was also corroborated by the testimony of Adv. S., who testified that he had the parties, who placed full trust in him, on all the forms required for the transfer of rights, that this was a "journey" that included reporting to the tax authorities and cancellation of foreclosures (at p.  21 of the Talmud and at 25 S.  1-7 of the Talmud).

I also gave credence to the plaintiff's testimony that if she had been given notice of cancellation of the gift transaction, she would have taken legal proceedings even earlier (p.  9, lines 18-37 of the Constitution).

29. In the circumstances, the plaintiff's claim that she learned thatthe land had not been transferred in her name and that the defendant was denying the transaction was not contradicted until close to the date of the lawsuit in 2024.
30. Therefore, I also did not see at the time of filing the claim any delay that could attest to the abandonment of the claim or the deterioration of the defendant's situation in a manner that would justify granting a drastic relief of blocking the plaintiff's way of proprietary right (Civil Appeal 6805/99 Talmud Torah General and Yeshiva Etz Chaim in Jerusalem v. The Local Planning and Building Committee, Jerusalem, IsrSC 57(5) 433; 445 (2003), Civil Appeal Authority 901/07 State of Israel - Atomic Energy Commission v. Guy-Lippel (September 19, 2010); Civil Appeal 8496/06 Estate of the late Moshe Iskolsky v.  Gan-Hadar, (May 4, 2008);Family Appeal (Haifa District) 34848-06-25 Labor Appeal v.  BHA (Nevo 30.12.2025)).

The right of the defendant to withdraw from the undertaking for a gift in real estate:

31. Since the registration of the land in the plaintiff's name has not yet been completed, this is an undertaking to give a gift (Civil Appeal 879/14 Nachshon v. Nachshon (May 5, 2016), Civil Appeal 11/75 Eretz Yisrael Yeshiva Committee v. Michaeli   30 (1) 639 (1975), in Family Appeal (Haifa) 55156-10-19 Anonymous v.  Anonymous (22.1.2020), Tax Appeal (Live) 358/06 S.Y.  v.  S.A .  (September 25.2006)).
32. In the circumstances, the right of the defendant/gift giver to retract his obligation to give a gift is regulated in section 5 of the Gift Law:

"5.  ...