ADVOCATE ISRAEL

Home - Nazareth District Court
To judges T. Orr, J. Abramowitz and - H. Ariel


AE (W) 2 / 81
Undermines: N. קונס Ltd.

vs
Respondents: In .1 Moshe Shoshani
.2 Life jasper

.3 Which Rozenman

This document was translated by computer software without human contact, so there may be significant errors in translation: please do not rely on the translation without obtaining appropriate advice with a certified Israeli advocate / lawyer


Real estate - land claim obsolescence regulated lawsuit against the need to remove the hand ¬ firmly "anti" - where the statute of limitations - who will be considered for "Leaf" on - according to Article 18 statute of limitations - a combination of several periods of strong hold.
License - Granting license implied possession of the land - a free license - termination - providing extended evacuation holder.
The discussion revolved around the claim of limitations against a lawsuit to remove a hand from immovable property are regulated. Also discussed an alternative argument that the defendants hold the ground - the authority on behalf of the owner.

Home - Court ruled: and
A. .1. Strong creative limitations only when "anti", that is, not coming under the ownership right of the shooting.
At. This was the situation before the statute of limitations Sign in effect,

And entry into force of law, not changed the situation.
C. Sometimes Cstkoft holdings is very long, very
Holdings, when circumstances prove the opposite, can learn about nature "contrary to" the strongest.

D.. If the defendant held the land by owner, and I
Prove that at some point has to be holding its own anti began to hold her, to prove that at that stage did something that has to demonstrate it over a period of possession by the owner to combine the strong and independent and "bank".
The. Difficult question for decision is whether under certain circumstances it was
Possession of land owned by the defendant violates a strong prosecutor, or was it the strongest on - according to agreement, because permission to None or silence by the owner.
And. Halacha is that if someone holds the land unknown, without it, who knows about it, prevents it from him and agree that silence, this silence can be interpreted as acquiescence.
M. Not determine the fate of the question - if it is tightly
Contravenes or power given by authority - the - the nature of the actions of the occupier of the land only; what matters set for deciding is the tacit nature of the behavior of the owner.

H.. As a person holds land exploitation ground presence
It is not contrary to the owner's interest, in fact, does not mind it does not cause him
Damage - it is the most powerful possession consent, and say it is a powerful antioxidant, and therefore do not benefit the defendant contends that the statute of limitations.
A. .2. Any strong or land rights before the settlement, which does not help those claiming any rights on - their mouths, and on ¬ orders payable to the order of Article 81 land rights [New Version] mouth "of real estate listing new notebook right to cancel any registration contradictory him ..." At. Lands at issue passed the order process, by virtue of Section 81 order is to appoint the above period of limitation only listing date.

C. Period of limitation on who began to hold land

1.3.43 is regulated after 30 years.
D.. In light of sections 159 (b) and - 169 Lands Act, no statute of limitations in land deals, M. - 1.3.43 to 1.1.70 (the date of entry into force of the law of land) can not take a period of 30 years.
The. On - yes, regulated land holdings which began after 1.3.43, can not stand the defendant's claim limitations.
.3 A.. On - according to Article 18 statute of limitations, "convertible" original owner's right to possession is entitled to purify the period of his predecessor in his own period of possession for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation.
At. "Convertible" in the sense of Article 18 above is just who came in place of another legally, such as the - by inheritance, guardianship, or estate administrator appointed receivership, etc., cases came just replaced his predecessor's place, not be created against a separate cause independent.
A. .4. To create a land use license agreement does not need explicit enough the behavior of owners of land which it can be concluded that they agreed to retroactively accepted the use of another property.

At. Such permission is given implied silence free license

Can be be idle at any time.
C. Have to give the bar - the Authority notice of cancellation of authority, and took reasonable evacuation asset.

D.. The announcement of the cancellation should not be a certain style
Fixed and defined, and sometimes there are actually filing suit because an insufficient cancellation.
The. Mere passage of time the prosecution to provide clarification ruling - the law, sufficient, appropriate circumstances, constitute a reasonable extension to evacuate.

And. Claim evacuation of holding land cause cancellation of authority
Given, requires explicit argument of this cause for indictment.
M. When the demand is served hand removal, the defendant defends claim
Authority vested in him, the prosecutor argues in response, the Authority is revoked, will be satisfied by the - Court argument
For the plaintiff, when it is clear, matter of cancellation of the permit posted on the negotiating table.

References: N.

Rulings - Dean of the House - Supreme Court: in
[1] AE 223/52 Griver N. Greene, PD T 47, .51
[2] and writer AE 605/65 - 5th brother v. Gerd, PD (approximately 4) 7, .14
[3] AE 473/69 Pearl volume v. Sulikt, PD pitcher (1) 154, 157, .185
[4] AE 316/62 Municipality of Tel Aviv - Jaffa N. Cohen, PD unit (4) 744, 747, 748, .749
[5] AE 212/62 Strcilvic N. Epstein, PD Tz 2377, 2380, .2383
[6] AE 46/60 Iolizri N. Navon, PD calendar 2199, .2204
[7] AE 213/76 Gilberg v. Fnos, PD did not (2) 272, .278
[8] HCJ 45/71 Krisvsky v. Municipality of Tel - Aviv - Jaffa, PD so (1) 792, 795, .797
[9] AE 247/72 Haddad v. Rasco, Ltd., PD Power (2) 533, .536
[10] AE 138/52 Custodian of Absentee Property v. Naim et al, PD Tz 2111.
[11] Khatib and AE 547/74 - 5 Brother v. State of Israel et al, PD and (2) 440, .444
[12] AE 65/61 and without - 4 Brother v. State of Israel, PD unit (4) 766, 9-.768
[13] AE Abdel Fatah 185/76 Hardy v. appeals Affairs Committee taxis, PD Heart (2) 645, .648
[14] AE 242/66 Jacobson v. Gas, PD Ca (1) 85, 92-.93
[15] AE 431/61 Lbzovsky v. Fischel, PD T. 2.487
[16] AE 22/57 Alsalm N. Awad, PD Ib 387, .390
[17] AE 620/74 Moore v. Doe, PD to (1) 218, .223
[18] AE 542/68 Sura Ben N. Ben Sura et al, PD כג (1) 169, .171
[19] AE 138/62 Custodian of Absentee Property v. employee, PD Tz 2649, .2656
[20] AE 32/77 Tbolitzki v. Midrash synagogue and the Hasidim, PD did not (3) 210, 214, 215, .218
[21] AE 657/71 Yekutiel v. Minister of Finance, PD Ko (2) 564, .567
[22] AE 586/69 Crsnti N. Himnuta Ltd., PD jug (2) 789, 791, .792
[23] AE 517/70 Gross v. N.tz. Club Ltd, PD Ko (1) .175
[24] AE 290/67 Inman v. Development Authority et al, PD captain (1) .16
[25] AE 444/65 Pritzker v. Shahin H., PD c. (1) 675, .678
[26] AE 459/79 Israel Knesset General Committee v. Ahmad Al Ayoub et al, PD her (4) 188, .196
[27] AE 96/50 and Zinc - 4 brother v. Wyatt, PD of 474, .477
[28] AE 780/80 Dds N. Honovic, PD him (1) .500

Stopped - Dean of the House - District Court: and
[29] AE (TA) 501/74 Panos N. Gershon, SP Tsl"o (2) 412, .422


Ruled - English law: F
[30]. . 575All e. R 3
[1974] Wallis v. Israeli legislation Shell: B

[31] The Ottoman Land Law, S. .20
[32] the statute of limitations, Tshi"h 1958, Book of Laws 251, S. 2, 5, 18, 22, .29
[33] Ordinance land rights settlement
[New Version], D"m .13
[34] Lands Act, 1969, Book of Laws 575, S. 159 (b), .169
[35] Tort Ordinance
[New Version], D"m 10, S. 29

Legal literature: and
[36] from a stall, the laws of the land of Israel (2nd edition, Jerusalem, Tshi"g) .303


Editor's Notes: N

1 According to the statute of limitations in land, see: B
M stand, "strong as purchase rights, a lawyer .196
AE (live) 31/73 materials v. Fliglmn, SP Tsl"d (2) .301
.2 Cancel free hold real estate license, see: and
AE 515/76 Levy et al Haiman et al, PD did not (2) .127
AE 304/72 Bialer v. Bialer, PD deja (1) .533
AE 355/76 Sioux v. Angel et al, PD did not (2) 359, .364
AE 50/77 Mizrahi v. Aflalo, PD did not (3) .433
AE (TA) 201/74 Har Lev v. Tzoovn et al, SP Tsl"o (2) 272, .277

Claimed: N.

Undermines: in attorney Meir Cohen
Respondents: Advocate and M. Lifshitz


Stopped - Dean

.1 In - Magistrate's Court was filed in Afula - TA 1316/76 demand for removal of a hand on - by that undermines קונס Ltd. (hereinafter - "undermines") against three defendants: N. Moshe Shoshani (hereinafter - "roses"), a life jasper (hereinafter - "Jasper") and Rosenman (hereinafter - "Rosenman"). The prosecution referred to the territory - land plots 10, 11 and 12
Mass 17,021, plots 3 and - 7 Gush 17,022 and smooth 3 - 4 block 1723, described on a map which accompanied the amended indictment, filed the first instance (these plots will read below - "smooth").
From these plots Shoshani has an area of 230 acres marked in yellow on the map; Jasper has an area of 38 acres (two separate plots marked in green on the map) Rosenman, who is the brother of roses, holding an area of 237 acres (marked light green on the map). In this area included a strip of land area of approximately - 80 acres at the northern edge marked on the map
Red line. About 80 acres of these claims Rosenman he Hcaram estate of someone named Yehiel Fnmn late (this area will read below - "80 acres").
Over all the territories, as stated, the approach that undermines against three defendants, who are respondents in this appeal, demand removal of hand. Decision - the first instance be a lawyer on 28.1.80 decided to house - court (Justice A. Cohen) as follows: In
A.. Shoshani was ordered to remove his hand from the area held on - hand, as noted, is fully evacuated.
At. Rosenman was ordered to remove his hand from the area held on - hand, as noted, turn to, except for - 80 acres, which rejected the claim in relation to them.

C. The case against Jasper denied.
D.. Shoshana Rosenman, who were ordered to remove them from the territories, such transactions A and - B above, was granted an extension to the removal of the hand to .1.7.82
The. Shoshani Rosenman committed to pay costs and undermines - trouble for a total of 000, 25 pounds. Can not warrant spending all that undermines the relationship between Jasper.
.2 Us opposing the appeal and Appeal ruling - dealing. Undermines undermines the ruling - the law as follows: and
A.. For rejecting the claim against Jasper and rejecting the part of its claim against Rosenman, relating to - 80 acres.
At. The extension given by Shoshana Rosenman remove them from those areas
Which were ordered to remove them, do so until .1.7.82
C. The rate of wages - bother Editor - Dean awarded to her, which she claims is considerably lower than that which was a stop.
Respondents appeal an appeal is filed opposing the following points: N.

A.. Hand removal was ordered against him Shoshani.
At. Hand removal was ordered against him relating to the area Svahazkto Rozenman
(Except 80 acres).
C. Alternatively, the date on which the roses were ordered to remove their Rosenman those areas are ordered to remove them. According to these respondents, an extension given to them to remove them too short.
D.. On avoiding home - Mlhiib the court to pay costs and undermines --

Jasper trouble, despite its claim against him was denied.
3 plots, which are part of the disputed them, passed the order during the proceedings mandated, as a result of these settlement proceedings were recorded on 10.6.42 in the name of Central Association of Israel (hereinafter call - Agudath Israel "or" Association "). Agudath Israel in turn sold the rights to one of the plots, Moses Gross, a fee of 000, about 450 pounds - the bill of sale dated 14.8.54 (see Land Registry Office file 2078/74, presented N / 4). Gross in turn, sold the lots in the amount of different people like family Krminian same date (see Land Registry Office file Nazareth No. 2312/74- displayed N. / 5). Krminian family sold
Undermines the rights for a fee of 000,000, 1 LI on - the bill of sale dated 17.12.74 (see case Nazareth Land Registry Office No. 2966/74- displayed N. / 6), since as a record that undermines the disputed territories.
.4 Protection of three respondents (hereinafter also be called - "defendants") against the suit filed against them hand removal was expressed against Htiisna alternatively, they Barrie authority areas, except area of 80 acres, to whom claims Rosenman, he leased it to bequest the late Fnmn that he had rights in this area, including the right to lease Rosenman.
First discussed the statute of limitations claims of each of the respondents in that area for him claimed this argument. In this framework we will discuss whether lawfully ordered to remove their Shoshani Rosenman on - the ruling - Court of first instance, and whether there was a team on hand removal of Jasper areas where he holds. Discussed later on - 80 acres and whether there was room to reject the case against Ms. Rosenman this area. Then, for those areas that conclusion would be to order the removal of a hand, Ncria question whether an extension was given to remove hand until 1.7.82 was a place, ie, whether there was room to grant an extension Essentially, if so, whether for a short or longer than her parent house - court. Finally, in accordance with the conclusions of the questions mentioned above, the question of wages Ncria - bother Editor - Dean stopped the - court.
.5 Regarding a claim against any of the defendants were disagreements about whether the statute of limitations applies to the prosecution against any one of them. Mention, on - yes, first a few rules in the ways of obsolescence in real estate. Who have touched our purposes.
Land plots are discussed by a disease for which the provisions of Article 20 Ottoman Land Law [31], the statute of limitations provisions of sections discussing limitations of the land.
A.. Before entering the statute of limitations, Tshi"h - 1958 [32], (hereinafter - "the statute of limitations") attacked, according to Article 20 Ottoman Land Law [31], was not part of - so that those who held the ground that the prosecution against him, claiming the statute of limitations, should burden was to prove is "contrary", which holds a strong showing in independent possession of the land, following strong ownership claim by an independent.
"Obsolescence creates strong only when she 'anti', I mean that does not come under the ownership right to the opponent. (Words of Justice Landau AE 223/52
Griver N. Green on page 51 [1] See also AE 605/65 Winn v. Richard on page 14 with the letter D. [2]). "Originated by less stronger wholly owned can not be a basis for claims against the obsolescence claim husband registered "(see AE 473/69 Pearl volume v. Sulikt p. 185 [3]).
Sometimes Cstkoft holdings is particularly long, bone holding, when circumstances prove the opposite, can learn about nature "contrary to" the strongest (see AE 26/76 CAC 717/74. Two rulings - Dean are not released, But their photo attached summaries come - force respondents).
Strong and can not be a strong antioxidant, if it comes by virtue of the registered owner, whether because of the defendant rented, or because the owner received the permission to hold ground. And if the defendant held the land by owner, wants to prove at some point became a burden to be
Contradicts its own began to hold her, to prove, that at that stage did something that has to demonstrate it over a period of possession by the owner to combine the strong and independent and "bank". About sums up Justice Berenson the law 316/62 CAC Municipality of Tel - Aviv - Jaffa N. Cohen [4] says: on
"Respondent admitted that the leased areas belong to the municipality, the - yes when he was in after the lease ended, so he meets the statute of limitations argument, he had to prove that he retained him under that undermines not only her consent and has the right to claim ownership of it. AE 228 / 52, AE 38/52, 210/59 AE AE 431/61.'s usually no argument relies on a statute of limitations to prove the source of maintenance and AE 223/52 states that allow the prosecutor to investigate the defendant deliberately I held it out to save without right. When there know the source of the defendant's burden, and he holds the land for a period of stale indisputably legal and admission Meadow for the plaintiff, there is a discount for the defendant that he owned "stale claim element is only claim ownership ... claiming this claim actually says: and" I landlord, but since I hold so long, you can ask me to prove the costs of "AE 223/52 on page 51 but it is not so when the source is known and is not holding such a sight holdings came from land claim title to property. For example "If the defendant holds the land under lease agreement or other agreement that constitutes an admission by the prosecutor's possession, there is a strong powerful antioxidant, and has no limitation even when Dean takes up the period set by law, AE 223/51 page 51 AE 38/52 p. .1919 possession originated freehold, does not become a powerful antioxidant end of the lease period. The defendant's argument relies on aging to prove that the relationship ceased to hold the ground rent from the powerful antioxidant which claim title to property. To show that land after the lease concept took off the previous shape and put a shape contrary to the rights of the husband registered ... "(see Name on page 8-747).
More explains Justice Berenson later, the beginning of limitations begins Cshmhzik doing something that has to powerful antioxidant, for the period of limitations begins on the day was born claim against him, which was born with a strong beginning contrary. Therefore, to succeed in his defense, the defendant was "a certain point in time a particular act which contradicts the holding pens and began his submission that since the prosecution moved to period of limitation" (see there, on page 749 with the letter V.).
At. Was an attempt to question the need to prove the strong anti - aging by the person claiming the land since deleting the statute of limitations. Csntan AE 212/62 Strcilvic N. Epstein [5] statute of limitations, which discusses the limitation of claims in relation to real estate, does not distinguis
More between strong and powerful antioxidant that does not contradict, and to land claim limitations that no longer need to be contrary, permanent home - where the court, by Justice H. Cohen, who claimed that "pulls the heart, which she gives to Articles 2 and 5 of Law ¬ the statute of limitations simple verbal means, without reading into them that which is said in them explicitly. He also relied on statements made on - by Justice Landau AE 46/60 bouquets N. Navon (p. 2204 [6]). But judgments rendered ¬ Dean later determined that the statute of limitations after the entry into force, on ¬ statute of limitations argument to prove a defendant is not enough to show who held land for a period of limitation, but rather inevitably prove maintenance was strong "anti".
473/69 states that the CAC volume Pearl N. Sulikt above (see p. 157 [3]) and discussed more overwhelmed AE 213/76 Gilberg v. Fnos [7]. As the judge determines Berenson ruling -- This last law explicitly, "Even today, after the statute of limitations, has not been un-interested in its possession contrary acceptance from the law" (see p. 278 with the letter B).
Already mentioned here, about the meaning of planets Fnos [7], seems to us, the learned judge was not accurate. According to his words than paragraph 7 of the second chapter of the ruling - the law, according to the situation went Fnos [7] is, as if "each case has to prove, on the - according to circumstances, if required or strong anti Regulator Later it also determines the learned judge that" there need only an ordinary statute of limitations and a strong antioxidant, and in accordance with that stated in case law AE 212/62 quoted above.
As we said above, the nature of possession required proof of claim limitations in real estate has not changed with the entry into force statute of limitations.
C. Difficult question for decision is whether under certain circumstances a defendant was in possession of land owned by a powerful prosecutor contradicts, or was it the strongest on - and because of the authority implied acceptance or silence by the owner. Halacha is that if someone holds the land unknown, without it, who knows about it, prevents it from him and agree that silence, this silence can be interpreted as acquiescence. (See eg HCJ 45/71 Kroshvsky v. Municipality of Tel - Aviv - Jaffa [8] and AE 247/72 Haddad v. Rasco, Ltd. [9]). The difficulty is to decide when to pause and there is agreement creates holder permission to use the land, then Hhakto is the power of the owner, Bharshato - and anyway there is no contrary holdings, and when it does not consent, the possession of someone in the background, accompanied by the exclusive possession of a person who does in his, is a powerful antioxidant. on - the behavior and actions of Only land that someone will decide, if maintenance is a powerful antioxidant or possession possession. once been determined acts of a ground on - although they are distinct in terms of character and deeds of a man makes in his - such as planting and construction - can be interpreted get permission, and get on - by whom, which operates under a strong ownership claim (see facts on - HCJ 45/71 Kroshvsky v. Municipality of Tel - Aviv - Jaffa [8] CAC 247/72 Haddad v. Rasco Limited Hen " to [9]).
This means that determine the fate of the question - whether tightly or firmly opposes authority granted by - the - the nature of the actions of the occupier of the land only. What is important for deciding set, is the tacit nature of the behavior of the owner. If
Can be understood according to all evidence and circumstances of the case silence that consent of the owner, then do not say possession is a strong antioxidant, it is done with the consent, held tacit permission. But delicate question is, how and on what is interpreted to be determined silence agreement allowing? Question then the silence of those who who have not interpreted the silence of structured, and - the court should decide this sense of silence, the - the circumstances of the case.
Csndona affair Fnos [7] ruling - Court of appeals courts - in Tel Aviv District Court (ruled - a lawyer who appeal to be stopped - Court CAC 213/76 Gilberg v. Fnos above [7]), suggested captain 'The judge in his own bid Cohen, practices following the case of Wallis v. Shell [30]. Hnmkto found a way acceptable to the House - the Supreme Court, sitting to discuss the appeal the ruling - Court (see remarks Justice Berenson AE 213/76 Gilberg v. Fnos above p. 278 with the signal in [7]) and deserve are Snztadtm:
"Holding in question to benefit claim limitation is not enough that she goes against the legal interests of the owners: it should oppose the practical interest. In other words, as long as the circumstances justify to the owner did not care what this person does Meanwhile, real estate, then this does not indicate strong powerful antioxidant useful pitcher According obsolescence. (See AE (TA) 501/74 Panos N. Gershon on page 422 with the signal in [29]).
On - according to these things, which with all due respect we are as a person holds ground, ground presence exploitation it is not contrary to the owner's interest, in fact, does not mind it does not cause damage - it is holding strong with his consent, and tell her possession contrary is therefore not benefit the defendant contends that the statute of limitations.
The legal situation is, the - yes, like the house - court determine the defendant's character holding ground, and if nature is such, that - according to circumstances, and considering the above, retaining possession was with the consent of the owner - and these can also be given to silence implied - then Even if she had passed the period of limitation, not holding, as noted, contends that the statute of limitations ground helpful. Only if the holding was contrary, past period of limitation - the defendant's claim will become obsolete.
That is mentioned a number of important laws purposes. The ways we treat more options below, however important they are for discussion maturity discussed below.

Now we will treat the appeal claims themselves.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - --
The. On - according to what the learned judge stated, holding the roses Rosenman territories, was the strong nature of possession and holding contrary, not only because the power of the owner came, Agudath Israel, annotated above. He noted in this context that, in June 1942 moved to the land settlement process, but they turned the case to the clerk of the order, resulting arrangement was recorded in the land owned or owned by Agudath Israel. That fact, according to the learned judge says we asked. Indeed, the strong areas, which was after the arrangement was similar in nature
The one that preceded it, and uploaded this powerful and proven was different than it was before the settlement, and on - the same strong prior arrangement, the two have not seen them any right to the ground - the fact is, not recorded any rights in favor of the two territories as a result of settlement procedures - no holdings after the settlement, so long as the character comes change, change, express the difference in the character of Hhzka turning L"n banks "to help them claim their limitations (see above quotation AE 310/62).
Obviously, any strong or land rights before the settlement, which does not help those claiming any rights on - their mouths, and that the - under the provisions of Article 81 land rights settlement Ordinance [New Version] Instiute - 1969 [33], who instead of Article 43 previous command, that "the real estate listing new notebook will cancel all right contradictory that registration, unless instructed otherwise this command for this purpose.
But not only that. Cshmtbrr, holding the ground after a similar arrangement to that nature was first arrangement, that is, the holder did not believe I held before the arrangement is in possession of those who claim to gain ownership, to shed light on the nature of post-maintenance arrangement. Logic of the law regarding limitations in real estate is, after passage of statute of limitations, no longer require the holder to prove the source of ownership, as long as I held the ground is contrary, ie, who argues that land ownership rights. In our case, but the arrangement applies only several years after the Rose Rosenman began occupying the land. While the arrangement, if they had a claim of ownership could prove - it was not difficult to do so. The fact that they were landowners, but the association, apparently, they had no real claim of ownership, they can prove, holding the leaves was not presumption. To stand strong argument contradicts them after the settlement, alleged that makes sense is to prove they are being held after the arrangement is fundamentally different than the previous arrangement. If a similar arrangement is holding first, it was strong, apparently, did not come by virtue of a right or claim of ownership.
And. The learned judge also states that those actions in relation to ground of Shoshani Rosenman suggests, under the circumstances, "that the Authority had continued strong implied, due to the association, specifically the nucleus initially allowed to settle, given implied permission holder to hold and process the land or authority on its behalf - the behavior "(see paragraph 10 of decision - the law). His conclusion is, keeping them was strong and powerful antioxidant used to that "which remains in place, they did not stay as a prosecutor the right to contradict the association, which also, as I stressed, did not indicate any serious action against owners and the owners, the Association, opposes it." (See paragraph 10 of decision - the law).
Bmimtza the learned judge's basic bet is, if we remember, this period was the period of redemption of land and landlords a clear interest in the land will be treated - by the Jews. Cshtfrk nucleus, and Adam was one of his friends, along with others, continue processing the ground clearance, and the ground remains hands Hebrew ¬ alleged these acts not because the owners against their will. On the contrary - the real interest of the owner was, the land will be treated and remain free on the ¬ rise by Arabs (as shown, adjacent lands were processing
Arabs). These continue Rosenman Csvensibot Shoshani process the ground, and the owners do not prevent them from doing so, it should be interpreted that the holding by the owner's consent that - an agreement that creates authority - but not a strong antioxidant. That the learned judge interpreted it, and there is no bet his conclusion.
In this context we should mention also that Shoshani Rosenman were among the early holding ground that the Jewish community notrim recruited from within the same period (see evidence of Ophir on page 74 committees Sherman on page 93), and they lived on the white building plots, Cstfkidm was, inter alia, to Jewish land in that area. On - yes, it was reasonable, the owner will see them as holding land in favor of Jewish owners, and any claim under their own ownership.
M. Another argument was but - force the defendants was the strongest antioxidant power was the fact that - despite Agudath Israel's position has been ground, there to keep a bed of soil, proven, continuously cultivated land without laying waste in a bed. That he wished to conclude powerful antioxidant that date was not honored Shemitah laying waste ground. Because you have no claims to greater defiance against the landowner, the society, than an act like that, next to harm the owner's property.
In this context, mention should have been told, and, lands at issue passed the order process, proceedings ended on the land registry - there Agudath Israel on 10.6.42, the new registry violates the right to cancel all, and - yes, count the period of limitation only listing date . (See Khatib and AE 547/74 - 5 Brother v. State of Israel et al Ltd 444 with signal in [11]; saw 65/61 without AE v. State of Israel, p. 768 to 769 [12 ], the above-mentioned AE 547/74; 3185/76 AE Abdel Fatah Hardy v. appeals committee for taxis, p. 648 [13]; HCJ 45/71 and above on page 795 [ 8] with the letter C).
The question is, if not keeping omitted because there is a strong antioxidant action, which from that date onwards holding of Rosenman Shoshani is contrary, even if previously came under the Association. Since Shemitah began in -18.9.44, the first question arising is whether this date has passed since the period of limitation.
H.. As an extension of this statute of limitations period, mentioned provisions of law relating to our purposes, these are sections 159 (b) and - 169 real estate law, Instiute - 1969 [34] sections 5, 22, and 29 (c))) d) Statute of Limitations [3]. Noshm of Sections 159 (b) and - 169 Lands Act is as follows:

"... 159
(B) statute of limitations, Tshi"h 1958, does not apply to claims for land rights are regulated, but this does not prevent a claim under the statute of limitations that a person was entitled to claim her before the start of this Law ".
".169 This law as the beginning day of Tevet Ts"l (1 January 1970).


Helen sections Harlwanteim statute of limitations:
".5 Time when obsolescence claim not filed her action (the" period of limitation ") is ...
(B) land - fifteen years; if the estate were recorded in the books after arranging title to property under the Lands Ordinance (property rights arrangement) - Twenty-five years.
.6 Statute of limitations begins on the day she was born cause of action ".
"22 In sections 20 and - 78 Ottoman Land Law will replace the period in which the period of fifteen years, and on land registered in the books right to the estate after the arrangement of property under the Lands Ordinance (arrangement of property rights) - the period of twenty-five years; But for a man began occupying land after some days' D. Adar תש"ג (1 March 1943) will not come Samuel important period of five years commencing from the beginning of this Law; instead of legitimate reasons to delay the said period of limitation in section 20 of the law in question, the provisions of this law to think period of limitation ".

"29 ...
(B) claim a real estate interest to apply it all the provisions of this law even if this law before the prosecution or Ntiisna over a fixed period that sections 20 and - 78 Ottoman Land Law.
(C) claim that Ntiisna before commencement of this Law shall apply to it all the provisions of this Law ".
On - the face value of things, based on the light in Article 22 statute of limitations, statute of limitations for those who hold real estate began after 1.3.43, it's 30 years. Since by this section shall, not taking into account a period of 5 years, commencing from the beginning of the statute of limitations. The aforesaid also asked that those who cause the demand on land began after 1.3.43 ¬ our case, contrary Cshachzkto began after that date - he has no chance of limitations claim. In light of sections 159 (b) and -169, dated 1.1.70 no statute of limitations in land deals. M - 1.3.43 to 1.1.70 can not take a period of 30 years. And - yes, Regulated land, holdings which began after 1.3.43, can not stand the defendant's claim limitations.
Because our case contradicts a strong argument on - by the processing is omitted in the ground about what was done in 1944, anyway, this argument can not benefit the defendants. All their claim until a settlement can not stand, and in 1944 did not hold strong anti land, but continued to hold her under her possession by reason of Agudath Israel, annotated above. Therefore, even if Lenin was to treat the ground processing in omitted as an expression of behavior that has a strong expression of antioxidant - does not benefit the defendant; to the entry of real estate law went into effect no period of limitation. When we reached this conclusion, there is no need Sncria factual disputes conclusions
Conclude that the legal processing of land omitted, if circumstances of the case is seen as changing the nature of possession of the land by the defendants, or whether, as argued undermines all done well in - in 1944 following years, not to him, under the circumstances, acts contrary to the will or consent of Association Israel, that have the strongest claim to establish the contrary.
Have to wake up here, who - some of the defendants power above interpretation of the law cited above, methodically, the period of limitation of 25 years applies to the ground began to hold strong anti after .1.3.43 about it relied on the said decision - the court of first instance, reminding the The trend of the law came to fix the section 22, and relied on statements made decision - this law 185/76 AE Abdel Fatah Hardy v. appeals committee for taxis [13]. AE 185/76 what was said above [13] No help for our purposes, as there was a possession that began before 1.3.43, the interesting question we never discussed there. Also claim the intention of the amendment of Article 22 statute of limitations can not help him, given the clear wording of Section 22 statute of limitations.
T.. At Our conclusion, as stated, there is no need to decide whether it was omitted in the ground processing demonstrator act contrary to the holding of Shoshani Rozenman, the following action pursuant to claim ownership, a question which the learned judge ruled that undermines claims by defendants and rejected claims. Menachem white communities, a member of the nucleus, it turns out, he left the nucleus due to disagreements on whether the land will be treated in bed, Cshagodt Israel, religious affairs and supervised the core group, banned in the ground processing method (see p. 187 protocol). These asked for came - force the defendants to conclude processing Agudat Israel saw the act in a bed not severe, and such processing would see ownership rights violation, therefore, should be seen as an act of demonstrating a strong antioxidant.
In light of the above, we can treat this claim in short, say, not Socnano it. Does not mean what she intended to become the nucleus of a religious society than on the ground, which supervised the affairs, what is being done on the ground on - by others, who supervised part of the religious core. Agudath Israel of land were many who bought in the valley, and apparently that is not breaking land and valley land. As indicated Paltiel rock, based on testimony the learned judge, "There was no brochure land in the valley" (see p. 54). Implication, that other land of Agudath Israel was not breaking ground, and - yes, does not mean the fact that cultivated the land in a bed, that is an act, for which Israel sees Association was defiant right owner of the land.
7 Our conclusion from all of the above is that the learned judge was right statement, Berry Rose Rosenman had authority in the territories which were ordered to remove them, appeal of these two limitations argument relies on claims about Lhhazktm territories - is liable to be postponed.
- - - - - - - - - - - --
D.. Until 1954 he worked Jasper Bmsko of רוזנסקי, and this period began to Jasper's strong ground alone. Even if the period is about holding ground since 1954,
Csrosensky stopped working in the field, not yet passed the period of limitation. Can claim the statute of limitations, the - yes, to him, only if there is a defect to bring the period of limitation period in the possession of רוזנסקי that of jasper, which went through the learned judge.
Statute of limitations before the entry into force was described on the legal situation - stand by the learned author, in his book, "land policy in Israel" (second edition 1952 p. 303 [36]):
"If the land subject of the conflict, which have held different one after another and those who had personal contact (Fribiti) attach the temporary possession of all holders, if any time to join together for a period of fifteen years (as it then was the period of limitation) is obsolescence Hmfkat the right to demand of the real owner, but the absence of personal contact between the various holders, each holding a separate exist for a time less than fifteen years - has no right to demand of the real owner expires.
This passage was quoted on - by the - Court CAC 212/62 Strclvic N. Epstein above [5], and - the court mentioned there (from Justice H. Cohen), Article 18 statute of limitations in expression of the same principle. But the - the facts ruling - Court there was no legal connection or reference between the holders, it was obvious that they can be considered one exchange to another. Under these circumstances, there was no need to decide the question interesting us, therefore, provides a house - the court that he could "leave to further study the question if any may have distinguished 'suits' for the purposes of Article 18 statute of limitations, and trespassing (see there, p. 2383 [ 5]).
On - according to Article 18 statute of limitations, "for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation is immaterial whether the right claimed - by the person entitled to the original, or - by a suit or whether the right claimed against the original debtor or a suit ...".
Interpretation of the caliph in the sense of Article 18 needed a law - the Supreme Court, as we could determine, only the CAC 242/66 Jacobson v. gas [14]. Ruling - discussed this law suit theft picture, and whether there Htiisna prosecution if not, needed Home - Court, inter alia, the question of whether a person, holding an image when it claimed a theft claim, can rely on his claim of limitation on the holding image - Vahazkth by his predecessor, if yes - Dean prosecution's argument was rejected by the statute of limitations.
Regarding the term "caliph" which in Article 18, says Justice H. Cohen ¬ recall also wrote that the ruling - Court CAC above 212/62 [5]:
"I think the respondent is not a 'convertible' within the meaning of section 18 does not write anything but the person who replaces' his friend for the purposes of a right or liability shall: Reuven, Shimon and Levi are replacing certain defendants claim only if - except about the defendant rights - claim is changeless For each of them. law applies, for example, Cszkot or liability shall go heir Heir, bankrupt trustee, etc. which is not the place that replaced the replacement potent cause
Prosecution, as to the cause lies in the act or omission of the 'caliph' itself, and not (or not only) by act or omission of his predecessor. "(See p. 93-92). Says things like Justice Berenson a separate opinion, namely:
"The word 'caliph' resumed the purposes of limitations in the Knesset's sermon statute of limitations. According to my article 'edge legislation, published Vafrklit as (c) 399-397, meaning the' caliph 'is" the next thing instead of his predecessor, and, alternatively, but completely disappeared from Cshkodm. Possession of an article that is used to formulate the rules, he knows the exact meaning of this new term, probably came out from under him. He adds there saying: "This shape legislation Ntiihda second person legally in place of another (substitute). Heading section "Tsobt right does not affect", last part deals with the way the secretary the right to inheritance show his opinion, that the original debtor's suit for the right defendant is the one that passed him right by law requires the original or fell beside him in these circumstances that created a separate and independent cause against the defendant -- claims suits - due to the transfer operation, the intention is for cases such as inheritance, guardianship, estate manager or appointing a receiver the like cases in which the new holder, the words of my "come legally in place of another". Indeed in this case each of those