|
1 Musa Kdmani
.2 Abdul Salem Kdmani
.3 Sammy Kadman
vs
Salim Abu Cilla - Haj et al
Supreme Court
[25.3.86, 27.3.86]
Before President M. Shamgar
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
Lands Act, 1969, Book of Laws 259, Sections 27, 37, Episode T..
Mini - Ratio:
* Commentary - Dean - General interpretation
* Property - real estate - real estate co
House - a claim rejected Magistrate sharing dismantling land plot, which is one of the three plots, which are listed units standing house - hotel. The District Court accepted the appeal. Hence the application available to an appeal regarding the question of dismantling the sharing part, which is part of building plots on which one stands, the question of delay decomposition to provide decision - final ruling of another lawsuit seeking, her grandfather on the rights of different plots.
The Supreme Court ruled: N.
A.. (1) Msnmna legislative definition of the term "common land" to be interpreted this phrase - the meaning of language and - according tied legislation.
(2) joint ownership can be created only when the number of known costs for one unit.
(3) to meet a real estate partnership for them, should assign the unit, for which recognize a number of joint costs.
(4) only, for which recognize the partnership owns, is recognized ¬ basic law on land registry, not a credible and reliable small. Anyway, decomposition refers to the same formal framework.
(5) the fact that the structure or processing of agricultural or strong, use, etc., extend over several plots together, does not make the issue a global legal significance, ignoring ownership allows each unit and a separate registration rights - including the right to request dissolution - linked her.
At. (1) is the existence of parallel proceedings in themselves to delay the process of decomposition.
(2) a delay in implementation can be considered only for the Feast of background circumstances.
Rulings - Dean of the Supreme Court mentioned: in
[1] AE 736/85 E. Lazar N. A. Lazar, PD Lett (4) 668. Notes: and
Dismantling land sharing, see: N. Rubinstein AE 319/74 Co. Ltd. contracting company v. Payne et al, PD to (1) 454; Y. Weissman, "The destruction of the real estate partnership - law the English studies in memory of Abraham Rosenthal theorem (Magnes Press, John Tedesco, editor, Tsc"d) .204
Request permission to appeal the ruling - Dino's Jerusalem District Court (Deputy President A. Charles judges Noam Tal, S. Brenner) 246/84 dated 28.12.85 CAC
It received an appeal on the ruling - Dino's House - Jerusalem Magistrate's Court (Judge H. sent) dated 8.11.84 Tel Aviv 5960/82. The request was denied.
Q Toussia Cohen - named applicants;
A. Farr - named respondents.
Resolution
1 House - Hotel X is built on three neighboring parcels, records of land registry units, and for one of the plots was asked to dismantling of existing cooperation between the owner partners. Old judge - Magistrate, Dr Khan sent late, rejected the demand to dismantle the sharing of thinking that one real estate property, such as the hotel building, standing on some plots, is one property for which the dissolution of sharing.
He says, Lands Act, 1969 does not expressly define the term in section 37 real estate real estate law, and creates a parallel between the term
"Real estate" and "Master Land Registry. On - yes concluded as follows: In
"When the owners of various parcels have jointly by agreement, one building on those lots, building separation is used for one purpose by drawing lots on which he was materially affects its value, then this structure should be seen as a real estate unit of the joint owners of plots rights records, at least in the dismantling sharing.
The court also seen to ignore the actual economic reality, as he puts it, and dismantle one part sharing, which is offensive, in his opinion, the value of property (hotel).
The District Court accepted the appeal. In his opinion, no place to restrict the right of real estate partner in the dissolution sharing Lembeck; is also stipulate the dismantling of sharing one unit dismantling or partly dismantling sharing, this will even share a neighbor. As he puts it --
"The very existence (as opposed to registration) of one common structure - used for one purpose - to record two separate units does not cause Lhfichtn of these two plots together to, common land 'for the purposes of Section 37 (a) and the power of the building referred to transform reality - legally - two units into one listing.
The district court therefore believed that one registry patch, which was subject at the request decomposition - Magistrate, you can maintain separate dissolution proceedings regardless of the status in terms of ownership of other additional plots, on which stands the hotel.
The court also found no preventive dismantling, which could result in some agreement among the owners. Yes the majority opinion in court that in light of Noshn relevant law can not postpone the breakdown of cooperation. Minority opinion was that there is a delay breakup order to provide the final verdict of another suit seeking, which turned the rights neighboring plots.
2 questions, which seek to raise them now to discuss an appeal to this court, are two: and first, a breakdown of the sharing part, which is part of building plots was one of them; Second, a delay decomposition.
.3 Did not see a place for permission to appeal on any of the above issues.
Section 37 discusses the right of a partner to ask for dissolution of common land sharing. Msnmna legislative definition of the term "common land" to be interpreted this phrase - the meaning of language and - according tied legislation.
Which it jointly owned then in question, which can occur only when the number of known costs for one unit (Article 27 of the law of land). Ie, to recognize the partnership for them to demarcate the land only for her know the number of joint costs. Land unit, designed - as if re - instructions of real estate law, is a unit of the registry (see Chapter T. Law). I am taking a tongue "redesign", since the prescription was not born from nothing out of the law received Instiute, but existed before, but the law in question earned him a new formal dress.
However, the real estate unit is subject to the registry, which record is the first time or renewing the registration, is the one for which prescribe Note, and, of course, this also created as a result of the settlement processes rely on different legal, complementing the Lands Act, as completed the rules that preceded it.
Summary of this point. Only, for which recognize the partnership owns, is known for - according to the law on the basis of land registry, not a credible and reliable small. Anyway, decomposition refers to the same formal framework. Fact, the structure or processing of agricultural or strong, use, etc., extend over several plots together, does not make the issue a global legal significance, ignoring ownership allows each unit and a separate registration rights - including the right to request dissolution - attached to her.
5129371 regarding delay implementation of what it costs ruling house - that last sentence AE 736/85 [1], that the existence of parallel proceedings, in themselves, to delay the process of decomposition. A delay in implementation is a matter that can only be weighed against the factual circumstances. In this respect there is, of course, a difference between two people shared apartment - a couple, when liquidation may result in the removal and dismantling section of the frame sharing business, but now we have to decide this issue.
Which - on - yes I decided to reject the request.
Applicants shall Bhutzaotihm of respondents with linkage and interest until the date of actual payment amount of 000, 1 New Israeli Shekels. |
ADVOCATE ISRAEL
