The District Court's Judgment
- The District Court rejected the appeal. It was held that the law does not grant inheritance entitlement to "siblings" by virtue of their being such, but rather by virtue of their being descendants of the testator's parents and their successors. It was emphasized that when the testator's parents inherit him according to the law, his estate is divided between them in equal parts, and if they are not alive at the time of his death, their replacements - their children - come in their shoes; and each parent's share in the testator's estate is divided equally among his children Own, as ruled in the Habsha. It was emphasized that therefore, my brother who testifies from two parents is entitled to a larger share of his estate, compared to the share of the His brother is a parent One. It was further held that given that the testator's brothers inherit his estate by virtue of their status as the successors of their parents, and not by virtue of their inheritance of their parents' estate, the question of who the parents' heirs are; and in any event, the question of whether the respondent withdrew from the mother's estate has no relevance.
This judgment is the basis of the appeal before us.
The main arguments of the parties
- The appellant argues that there is no room to make a distinction between the types of siblings, so that one should not reach a conclusion whereby a brother from two parents will inherit a larger part of his brother-testator's estate, in comparison to the testator's brother from one parent. According to him, there is no anchor for such a distinction in the Inheritance Law, and it contradicts legal policy considerations, which seek to ensure equal treatment between heirs with the same degree of kinship to the testator. On the contrary, according to the appellant, Section 14(b) The law states that children, who inherit in place of their parents who died before the testator, divide the testator's estate equally among themselves. The appellant further argues in this context that the previous courts erred in applying the law, and in adopting the judgment in the matter Habsha Notwithstanding the judgment inEstate Portfolio 44229-11-17 [Nevo]. Finally, the appellant argues that the respondent has departed from the mother's inheritance; therefore, he cannot be her successor in inheriting the deceased's estate.
- On the other hand, the respondent relies on the rulings of the previous courts and on the method of division that was determined in the case Habsha. As to his alleged withdrawal from the mother's estate, the respondent notes that the withdrawal does not meet the conditions required by Inheritance Regulations, 5758-1998.
Discussion and Decision
- I will say now that I believe that according to the rules of inheritance according to the law of the law Inheritance, the testator's estate is not necessarily divided equally between his siblings from one parent and his siblings from both parents; In view of the aforesaid, the appeal should be dismissed, and this is how I would suggest to my colleagues to instruct.
I will therefore turn to the examination of these rules, and the answer they give to the question before us.