On the fact that one should choose an interpretation that pours content into the agreement, and not an interpretation that empties the agreement of its content, we can refer to Civil Appeal 7347/21 Polymers Innovation in a Tax Appeal v. Polymers Group in a Tax Appeal (October 10, 2024, Judge v. Sohlberg, H. Kabub and Justice R. Ronen) where it was held as follows (emphases not in the original): "As is well known, section 25(a) ... Stipulates that the intentions of the parties to the contract will be learned from the language of the contract and the circumstances of the matter as a whole... This, then, is the way to search for the subjective purpose of the contract, which the court commands... In the meantime, it has often been ruled that when a contract is given different interpretations, the court must choose from among them the option that will best realize its subjective purpose... However, when it is not possible to trace the subjective purpose of the contract, it is necessary to turn to its objective purpose... In doing so, the court must apply the principle of good faith, considerations of fairness and logic, and common sense..."
- Finally as to the first reason for accepting the claim
- In practice, 34 meters were not transferred to the plaintiffs' territory. The defendant's conduct also seeks to evade restitution of an area of 34 square meters in the future, when it seeks to "transfer" to the plaintiffs' authority 34 square meters of "slips" that are not adjacent to the plaintiffs' territory and which in practice cannot be used fully and properly by law.
- The defendant's conduct is also contrary to the purpose of section 14 of the Land Law, 5729-1969, which states that "ownership and other rights in real estate do not in themselves justify doing something that causes harm or inconvenience to another". In practice, the defendant seeks to take advantage of the land theft that she and her spouse committed in the past and now, when she is in possession of the theft, to dictate to the plaintiffs a "solution" that is contrary to the essence of the judgment in which she adopted an agreement in which she undertook.
- The conduct of the defendant who seeks to "retaliate" against the theft of the land, an area that is not continuous and is not connected to the plaintiffs' territory, is outrageous conduct that should not be allowed.
Passage note - It seems that some of the defendant's children, and perhaps even the defendant herself, are aware of the forcefulness and lack of good faith in an attempt to cast a baseless interpretation of the judgment. This is what we learn from the testimonies heard in the course of the proceeding, as will be expanded below.
- The second of three reasons for accepting the claim - the conduct of the parties after the judgment
- The conduct of the parties after the judgment is a living testimony to the way in which they viewed the undertaking to return the theft of the land in an area of 34 square meters. In this regard, I would like to point out thaton December 6, 2021, about a year after the judgment was rendered, three of the defendant's children and the late Shimon Kehati issued a letter to the plaintiffs' attorney.
- The three who issued the letter are Avshalom Kehati, Irit Intratur and Naomi Kehati, two of whom served as custodians of the defendant and her late husband's property, and they were the ones who were even present in court and brought about the settlement agreement. These witnesses were concealed by the defendant, but the very existence of the letter was well known, and in this regard, Elad Kehati noted that he had spoken with his brother on the subject (P. 48, paras. 4-5). Information about the sending of the letter also arises from the interrogation of Avraham Kehati (P., p. 58, paras. 24-26)
- In the letter, the three children stated as follows (emphasis added): "In our understanding, the area adjacent to Erez's plot should have been returned..." That "Erez" is Erez Golani, plaintiff 1 here. And here is evidence that the area that the defendant must return is an area adjacent to half of the plaintiffs' lot.
For the sake of convenience, the words of the letter will be quoted, with the emphases not in the original: