AI English Translation, Pages 351-375
Advocate Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Advocate Hadi Latif
Sabri Bldg. - Mustansir Street
Tel. 82280
81442
83065
Lawyers' Office
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Hadi Latif
Al-Mustansir Street - Sabri Tu'aima Building
Office Telephones 82280 - 81442 - 83065
Number :: 2 / L / 62 / 402
Date :: 14 / 11 / 1962
To the Honorable Judge of the Karkh Court of First Instance
Subject / Responsive memorandum from the defendant's attorneys in the lawsuit
Numbered 45 / B / 60 .
Plaintiff: Hamid Majid Al-Mahdi - his attorney, Advocate Abdul Aziz Al-Shahir
Defendant: Chairman of the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews in his capacity as the administrator of the Menahem
Daniel Endowments - his attorneys, Advocates Hassan Abdullah Muthafar and Shaul Moussa .
The plaintiff's lawsuit is rejected for the following reasons :-
First: Rejection of the lawsuit on formal grounds:
A - The necessity of a formal notice before filing a rescission lawsuit :-
Paragraph (A) of Article (177) of the Civil Code stipulates that in a bilateral contract,
if one of the contracting parties does not fulfill his obligations under the contract, the other party may, after formal notice, request rescission
with compensation if there is justification for it.
From this text, it appears to your honorable court that the formal notice is an essential condition to be performed by the party seeking rescission, as
the formal notice before requesting rescission is of great importance, as Professor Al-Sanhuri says, and the formal notice is
a condition required by law, and the reply to the letter which the colleague claimed to have received from the attorney of the dismissed
administrator is not considered proof of formal notice. In addition, the issuance of this letter by the attorney
of the dismissed administrator cannot be relied upon by your honorable court for the following reasons :-
A - The presentation of the letter was after our request in our memorandum dated 4 / 11 / 1962 .
B - The mentioned letter does not have an officially fixed date .
C - It was issued during a period dominated by suspicion and doubt, especially since its presentation by the plaintiff was after
the dismissal of the administrator and our entry into the lawsuit as attorneys for the current administrator .
To be continued
— 2 —
While that is despite the fact that we believe the response to the mentioned letter is not considered a formal notice in the form and meaning required
legally, as it is nothing more than an acknowledgment issued by the agent of the dismissed trustee, and this acknowledgment is valid within the limits
in which the trustee or his agent is permitted to perform acts of disposition for the trustee, since the right of acknowledgment over the endowment does not
take effect as (Professor Shafiq al-Ani) says.
In addition to that, the trustee's agent, according to the presented power of attorney, does not have the right to acknowledge, as acknowledgment is not valid from a general
agent unless the power of attorney issued to this agent explicitly states his authorization to acknowledge (Al-Sanhuri — Al-Waseet
Part Two, p. 447).
All of this is in the case of assuming that the two contracts concluded by the agent of the dismissed trustee are within the authority
of the trustee according to the provisions of the endowment and the conditions of the endower, which is what he does not possess as will be explained later.
2 — The necessity of formal notice when requesting compensation:—
The plaintiff's requests in his lawsuit petition include two requests: the first is the rescission of the contract and the payment of an amount of 24,615 dinars
(twenty-four thousand six hundred and fifteen dinars).
The second: is his request for compensation in the amount of 8,000 dinars (eight thousand dinars).
Article (177) paragraph (1) of the Civil Code stipulates:
⟦line⟧ in bilateral contracts ⟦line⟧ the other contracting party may, after formal notice,
demand rescission with compensation if there is a justification ⟦line⟧ etc.).
The plaintiff did not provide the required legal notice based on this article and paragraph (1) of Article (256)
of the Civil Code, which stipulates (compensation is not due except after notifying the debtor).
As for the response to the letter presented to your esteemed court, it does not indicate the plaintiff's request for compensation, and its entire content,
assuming its validity, is that the agent of the dismissed trustee acknowledged the contract and requested the plaintiff not to take any —
legal measures to rescind the concluded contract and to grant him a period of five days to rescind another void contract, which is the contract of Mr.
Khairi Hassoun, which he claimed he had concluded by mistake. This is while knowing that the trustee does not originally possess the right to agree
with anyone to obligate the endowment to pay any compensation for any reason whatsoever, and if that were necessary, then after obtaining the permission of —
the judge, since obligating the endowment to pay compensation is pure harm to the endowment and contrary to the condition of the endower
specified in the endowment deed, and the trustee may not violate the condition of the endower except with the permission of the judge if the
interest of the endowment so requires.
Second: Dismissal of the lawsuit on the merits:—
1 — Characterization of the two contracts subject of the lawsuit:—
To be continued
- 2 -
This waiver of rent allowances for the endowment properties leased by the agent of the dismissed trustee to
other persons is considered a borrowing and loaning of amounts on behalf of the endowment. The detail of this is that the endowment properties subject
to the two contracts are leased by the contracting party (the agent of the dismissed trustee) to persons under contracts
in which they pledged to pay the rent allowances in installments, and he has actually received an installment of them. His waiver
of the remaining unearned installments is considered borrowing and loaning.
B - The powers of the trustee regarding the provisions of the endowment and the endowment deed:
The endowment deed No. 935/87 regarding the endowments of Menachem and Sassoon Saleh Daniel
issued by the Personal Status Court in Baghdad and the deeds based on it, whose numbers and dates are mentioned
within the said deed and attached herewith, specified the power of the trustee to lease the endowed properties at a fair rent
and stipulated for the validity of this lease that the trustee must obtain permission from the Body Council of the Mosaic Community
(the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews currently acting in its place), as the endowment deed required the trustee to submit
to the Body Council (the supervisor of the mentioned endowment affairs before the dismissal of the trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo and the transfer of
the trusteeship to the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews) a budget including the expected revenues from the endowed properties,
i.e., the rent allowances and expected expenses. He is not permitted to act except after the approval of the supervisor
(the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews) and obtaining its permission.
It is not hidden from your esteemed court that the condition of the endower is like the text of the Lawgiver in the necessity of following and acting upon it, and whoever
violates the endower's condition violates the text, and ruling based on it is a ruling without evidence (Part Three, p. 467 of the book Rad al-Muhtar
by the scholar Muhammad Amin, famously known as Ibn Abidin).
From all this, it is clear to your esteemed court that the permission must precede the action if
this action is a lease contract at a fair rent, not the contract leased by the plaintiff in the agreement, as the contract
presented by the plaintiff is not a lease contract, but rather, as we previously explained, a contract of waiver of rent allowances
of the endowed properties leased by the agent of the dismissed trustee to the tenants. The waiver contract is considered a forfeiture
of part of the endowment's rights, and the trustee does not possess this right, as the waiver of endowment rights is a definite harm to the endowment
and an explicit violation of the endowment deed. It stated in Article (10) of the book Tartib al-Sunuf fi Ahkam al-Wuquf -
by the late Ali Haydar, the following:
(The actions of the trustee and the judge regarding the endowment are conditional on the benefit). Accordingly, this action by the agent of the dismissed trustee
violates the provisions of the endowment and the endowment deed for the following reasons:
To be continued
— 4 —
A — It is not within the authority of the trustee, under the endowment deed, to waive the rights of the endowment.
B — The authority of the trustee to lease the endowed properties at a fair market rent requires for its validity obtaining prior permission from
the supervisor, and the contract subject of the lawsuit did not have the agent obtain prior permission from the supervisor.
C — The provisions of the endowment do not permit the trustee the right to waive the rights of the endowment because the waiver is a definite harm to the endowment
and an explicit violation of the endowment deed.
D — Even if extreme necessity calls for violating the condition of the endower, in this case, permission must be obtained from
the judge, and this is what Article (867) of the Arrangement of Classes in the Provisions of Endowments stipulates (It is permissible
for the trustee, after taking the opinion of the judge, to violate the conditions of the endower if necessity requires it and if the violation achieves
the interest of the endowment).
Accordingly, this action is outside the limits of the authority of the trustee and his agent, and they are personally responsible for it, and the agent of
the trustee and the dismissed plaintiff expected that, as evidenced by the fact that the trustee's agent had executed the waiver contract
in his capacity as an agent for Emil Saleh Shlomo personally and as a trustee, knowing that the subject of the waiver contract is located on endowed properties.
C — The authority of the contracting party, Edward Yaqoub Shamshoun:—
Under his general power of attorney No. 383 dated 1955/5/30, certified by the Karkh Notary Public.
It appears to your esteemed court from the power of attorney granted by Emil Saleh Shlomo, the dismissed trustee, to the contracting party
Edward Shamshoun, that the aforementioned person does not possess the right to waive, as the mentioned power of attorney specified the powers
owned by the agent and did not stipulate authorizing the agent to waive, which must be in explicit terms,
and the agent must execute the power of attorney without exceeding its drawn limits (933) Civil.
Also, Article (931) of the Civil Code stipulates that it is valid to specify the power of attorney by specifying the subject matter and to generalize it
by generalizing it. A special power of attorney is one that is limited to a specific legal act or acts (Part (5) p. 198 Preparatory Works
of the Egyptian Law). As for the general power of attorney, it is that which comes in general terms without specifying a particular legal act
for it; it is that which occurs in a general power of attorney in which nothing is named "over another thing." That is because if the thing is named,
"it does not benefit from generalization and delegation (Bidayat al-Mujtahid Vol. 2 p. 283). Accordingly, the power of attorney granted
by the dismissed trustee to his agent is limited to the actions mentioned therein, and no action among those actions was mentioned
regarding waiver, especially concerning the endowment. There are several decisions, including the Cassation Decision No. (3569 / Legal 67)
dated 67/1/7, which upheld the primary judgment No. (61/1601) filed by Mr.
Hamid Ali Rajab against the one whose agent is the same agent of the dismissed trustee. Where he had exceeded his authority
and executed a waiver of the rent for shops at a time when he did not possess this right according to his power of attorney.
To be continued
— 5 —
(Iraqi Civil Judiciary, Part Two, p. 239) and that not granting the dismissed trustee the right to waive
to the aforementioned agent is a natural matter since he does not possess this right (one who lacks a thing cannot give it) and that
the waiver, which is the subject of the lawsuit, is a forfeiture of part of the endowment's rights, and it is not permissible for the trustee to perform what involves
the loss of the endowment's assets or its yields, as we have previously explained. On this occasion, the trustee himself restricted the right
of discharge, forfeiture, settlement, and admission in the general power of attorney discussed for his private properties only.
Third: Non-disposal during a period dominated by suspicion and doubt:-
The supervisor (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews) filed lawsuit No. 30/Sh/1961 against
the (dismissed) trustee Emil Saleh Shlomo before the Court of Personal Matters in Baghdad, requesting his dismissal from
the trusteeship, basing his request on the legal actions contrary to the endowment deed and the provisions of the endowment issued by the trustee
mentioned against the endowment. After numerous hearings and the court's review of the mentioned trustee's actions, it decided
to dismiss him from the trusteeship according to its decision issued on 6/11/1962, which has acquired final status.
It appears to your esteemed court from reviewing the judgment in the mentioned lawsuit and the decision to dismiss him from the trusteeship
over the Ezra Menachem Daniel endowment No. 29/Sh/1959 issued on 5/6/1961 by the same
mentioned court, that the two judgments were based, among other reasons and causes, on the trustee's betrayal of the endowment
and his violation of the founder's condition, which is equivalent to the text of the legislator, and negligence of the endowment's rights.
The Court of Personal Matters reviewed the actions of the dismissed trustee which he carried out against the endowment, including
his leasing of the endowments without obtaining prior permission from the supervisor or his waiver of rents to several persons, so it decided
to restrain his hand from disposing of the endowment's affairs during the course of the lawsuit, and that was on 2/13/1961
as it was confirmed to it that the dismissed trustee's continued disposal of the endowment's affairs is a matter of certain harm to the endowment,
which forced it to issue the restraint and entrust the management of the endowments to it until the dismissal lawsuit is decided
and a new trustee is appointed.
The waiver contract, the subject of the lawsuit, is one of the illegal actions carried out by the agent of the dismissed trustee,
thereby violating the founder's condition and the general provisions of the endowment.
Accordingly, the occurrence of the mentioned disposal, which violates the endowment deed and the provisions of the endowment, during the period in which
the dismissal lawsuit was ongoing and being considered by the competent court and before the date of restraining his hand from disposal, makes
the former trustee and his agent personally responsible for this action, and the responsibility for
this action cannot be enforced against the endowment for the mentioned reasons.
To be continued
— 6 —
Summary: The plaintiff's claim is rejected for the following reasons:
⟦line⟧
First: From a formal standpoint: 1- The necessity of a notice, which the plaintiff did not provide before filing the lawsuit, based on paragraph
⟦line⟧
(1) of Article (177) Civil.
2- The necessity of a notice, which the plaintiff did not provide before filing the lawsuit to claim compensation
according to paragraph (1) of Article (177) Civil and paragraph (1) of Article (256)
Civil ⟦line⟧ .
Second: From a substantive standpoint: 1- The lack of authority of the contracting party, Edward Yaqoub Shashoua, under his general power of attorney to contract
⟦line⟧
Ci⟦line⟧vil.
Second: From a substantive standpoint: 1- The lack of authority of the contracting party, Edward Yaqoub Shashoua, under his general power of attorney to contract
with the plaintiff by a waiver contract for the Waqf rental fees in accordance with Articles (933) and
931 Civil and in accordance with the established rulings of the Court of Cassation.
2- The lack of authority of the trustee to conclude a waiver contract, and that is ⟦line⟧ :-
A - It is not within the authority of the trustee under the Waqf deed No. 87/935 to waive
the rights of the Wa⟦line⟧qf.
B- Failure to obtain prior permission from the supervisor (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews).
C - The provisions of the Waqf do not allow the trustee the right to waive because the waiver is a cer⟦line⟧tain harm
to the Waqf and because it is a debt in its legal characterization, and borrowing by the trustee
B- Failure to obtain prior permission from the supervisor (The Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews)
C - The provisions of the Waqf do not allow the trustee the right to waive because the waiver is a certain harm
to the Waqf and because it is a debt in its legal characterization, and borrowing by the trustee
is not permitted except with the permission of the judge.
3- The transaction occurred during a period dominated by doubt and suspicion, as the waiver took place
shortly before the trustee was restrained from acting and shortly before the dismissal judgment was issued.
From all of the above, it appears to your court that the waiver contract is void regarding the Waqf and does not entail any responsibility
on the Waqf; rather, it is considered an act for which the contracting party or his principal is personally liable.
Therefore, we request the dismissal of the plaintiff's lawsuit and that he be charged with the trial costs and attorney fees and the lifting of the seizure, while reserving our right to claim
from the plaintiff the amounts he received on account of the contract involved in the subject of the lawsuit.
Please accept our deepest thanks and respect.
Lawyer Lawyer
Shaul Moussa Hassan Abdullah Muzaffar
2 - 70
For this trustee and the judge in the endowment, a condition of public interest is required
And that is because of the judge's authority over the poor.
(And the arrangement of ranks in the rulings of endowments for the adversary p. 50 -
2 - 827
(The trustee may, after taking the judge's opinion, violate
the conditions of the endower if this necessity
arises and the violation achieves the interest of the endowment)
The purpose of drafting this receipt.
I, the undersigned, Edward Yaqoub, the general agent for the trustee of the Menachem Daniel Endowments, in my personal capacity and as a trustee,
have received from the lawyer Hamid Majeed Al-Obaidi a sum of three thousand six hundred dinars, and that is from
the amount owed by him for the rent of shares (504/297) for the shops and stores located
in the three markets in Khanjaghan and the upper rooms thereof located in the Bab Al-Agha neighborhood, according to
the contract concluded between us and certified by the Notary Public of South Baghdad II under general number 4915 -
and dated 8/22/1960, and accordingly I have signed this receipt as an acknowledgment of my receipt of the aforementioned amount and a
general discharge of his liability regarding what was stated in the second clause of the aforementioned contract.
Edward Yaqoub
General Agent for the Trustee of the Menachem Daniel Endowments
In his personal capacity and as a trustee according to the certified general power of attorney
from the Karkh Notary Public under general number 383 and dated
5/30/1955
The Republic of Iraq
Revenue Stamp
⟦illegible signature⟧
1 Jumada al-Ula 1380 AH
21 / 8 / 1960 AD
True Copy
Agreement
First Party - Edward Yaqoub - General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments
Second Party - Lawyer Hamid al-Obaidi and Mr. Thamer Jawhar
The two parties have agreed upon the following:
1 - The First Party, in his capacity as the General Agent for the Menahem Daniel Endowments, both personally and as a trustee by virtue of his general power of attorney
stipulated below, has agreed to waive to the Second Party the share of the aforementioned endowment from the rental values
for the 297/504 share belonging to the shops and the upper rooms located in the three markets
in Khanjaghan in the Bab al-Agha district for a period of two years starting from the first of Jumada al-Ula / year 1380 -
in exchange for an amount of (18,600) Dinars, which are the rents currently agreed upon with the tenants occupying
the aforementioned premises.
2 - The First Party has received an amount of fifteen thousand and three hundred Dinars out of the total rental
value amounting to eighteen thousand and six hundred Dinars from the Second Party according to the receipt numbered
General Number 4849 dated 8/20/1960, certified by the Notary Public of South Baghdad II, on account of
the rental values.
3 - The First Party is committed by the contract, considering that the share of the Menahem ⟦D⟧aniel Endowments amounting to
297/504 of the three markets, its rental value for one year shall be nine thousand and three hundred
Dinars relative to the occupants of the shops in the mentioned markets. The First Party shall be obliged to pay any
shortfall from the mentioned value to the Second Party should that occur.
4 - The First Party is committed to endorsing all promissory notes taken from the occupants of the mentioned shops to the Second
Party, and authorizes the Second Party to collect in accordance with the contracts concluded between the First Party and the shop occupants.
5 - The First Party is committed to all legal reductions should the government enact a law or decree reducing
rental values by the percentage decided by the law or decree, which shall be deducted from the original amount received by
the First Party; i.e., the First Party shall be responsible for legal reductions.
6 - If it appears that the First Party or any beneficiary of the aforementioned endowment has taken a path contrary
to this contract regarding leasing or waiving for the purpose of receiving rental values, the First Party, as the General Agent
for the mentioned endowment, shall be responsible for paying the amounts along with a compensation amount to the Second Party of five thousand Dinars if
the First Party ⟦reneges⟧ on implementing the terms of this agreement, or if the rental value is contrary
to the value mentioned in the third clause.
7 - The First Party must provide a detailed schedule with the names and numbers of the shops and rooms, mentioning the rental values,
on the condition that it matches the value of the rental shares for Menahem Daniel, amounting to nine thousand and three hundred Iraqi
Dinars for a period of one year.
8 - The First Party is owed by the Second Party an amount of three thousand and three hundred to be paid to the First Party
after seven months have passed from the date of implementation of this contract, corresponding to 1/Jumada al-Ula/1380 AH.
This contract was signed between the two parties without pressure, coercion, or deception, written in Baghdad on 21 / 8 / 1960.
Second Party | First Party
Thamer Jawhar | Edward Yaqoub, General Agent for the Trustee of Endowments
Lawyer Hamid al-Obaidi | of Menahem Daniel by virtue of the General Power of Attorney
| certified by the Notary Public of Karkh under
| General Number 383 dated 30 / 5 / 1955
Notary Public Office
South Baghdad II
No. 4915 dated 22 / 8 / 60
Republic of Iraq
10 Fils
I certify that the signatures shown at the bottom of this paper are the signatures of Edward Yaqoub in his capacity as agent
for the endowment, Lawyer Hamid al-Obaidi in person, and Thamer Jawhar in person, and they have read its content and acknowledged
the correctness of its contents on 22 / 8 / 1960.
Abdul Malik
Notary Public of South Baghdad II
True Copy
Baghdad 25 / 2 / 1961
To the honorable Mr. Lawyer Hamid Majid Al-Obaidi, respected
Greetings and respect
I have received your letter dated 3 / 2 / 61 informing me that Mr. Khairi Hassoun Al-Ansari
has announced in the Iraqi Al-Akhbar newspaper issued on February 2, 1961, that he has leased from me -
in my capacity as the general agent for the trustee of the Menahem and Sassoon Daniel endowments, the Daniel Market known as Khankhan and the shares
belonging to <del>my client</del> my client in the Zia Hotel as well as in the Sassoon Daniel Khan, and that you are urging me to annul
Khairi's contract on the grounds that this contract came approximately four months after your contract, and therefore I request of you
not to take any legal measures to annul the contract concluded between me and you and certified by the Notary Public of South
Baghdad II, and I also request a period of only five days from the writing of this letter so that I may be able to
annul the contract of Mr. Khairi Hassoun, which I concluded by mistake, otherwise you may take measures to annul the contract
concluded between me and you without the need for a formal notice or any other formalities. Please accept my utmost thanks
and respect
Signature
General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem
Daniel Endowments
The Iraqi Republic
Revenue Stamp
The papers were answered for the first installment
⟦illegible⟧
Number ⟦illegible⟧ second installment
1 / 2 / 9 ⟦illegible⟧ before 17 ⟦illegible⟧
Agreement
First Party - Edward Yaqoub - General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments
Second Party - Lawyer Hamid Majeed Al-Obaidi.
The two parties have agreed on the following:
1 - The First Party, as the General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments in his personal capacity and as trustee by virtue of his general power of attorney set forth below, has agreed to waive to the Second Party the rental amounts due to the aforementioned endowment for the share (297 / 504) belonging to the shops and the upper rooms located in the three markets in Khanjaghan in the Bab Al-Agha neighborhood for a period of one year starting from the first of Jumada al-Awwal - 1382 until 30 / Rabi' al-Thani / 1383 in exchange for an amount of (9300) Dinars, which are the rents currently agreed upon with the tenants occupying the aforementioned premises.
2 - The First Party <del>⟦illegible⟧</del> has received an amount of (9300) Dinars from the Second Party in cash, representing the rental amounts for the year mentioned above.
3 - The First Party is bound by the contract to consider the share of the Menahem Daniel Endowments, amounting to 297 / 504 of the three markets, to have an annual rental value of nine thousand three hundred Dinars, which is the amount received from the Second Party mentioned in the second clause of this agreement regarding the occupants of the shops in the mentioned markets. The First Party shall be obligated to pay any deficiency in the mentioned amount to the Second Party should such a deficiency occur.
4 - The First Party undertakes to endorse all contracts and promissory notes taken from the occupants of the aforementioned shops to the Second Party, and authorizes the Second Party to collect payments regarding the contracts concluded between the First Party and the shop occupants.
5 - The First Party is bound by all legal reductions if the government enacts a law or decree to reduce rental rates by the percentage decided by the law or decree, which shall be deducted from the original amount received by the First Party; meaning the First Party is responsible for legal reductions.
6 - If it appears that the First Party or any beneficiary of the aforementioned endowment has taken a path contrary to this contract regarding leasing or waiving for the purpose of receiving rental amounts, the First Party, as the General Agent for the mentioned endowment, shall be responsible for paying the ⟦amounts⟧ received along with compensation to the Second Party in the amount of three thousand Dinars. This also applies if the First Party fails to implement the terms of this contract or if the rental value contradicts the rental amounts mentioned in the third clause above.
7 - The First Party must provide a detailed schedule with the names and numbers of the shops and rooms, stating the rental amounts, provided that the total rental value for the share of Menahem Daniel matches the amount of nine thousand three hundred Iraqi Dinars per year.
8 - This contract was signed between the two parties without pressure, coercion, or deception, drafted in Baghdad on 24 / 11 / 1960.
Second Party First Party
Lawyer Hamid Majeed Al-Obaidi Edward Yaqoub, General Agent for the Trustee
of the Menahem Daniel Endowments by virtue of the general power of attorney
certified by the Notary Public of Karkh under general
number 383 and dated 30 / 5 / 1955
True Copy
Edward Yaqoub, General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments
Annual Number 7717 and dated 24 / 11 / 1960
I, the undersigned at the bottom of this contract, certify the signature of the First Party, Mr. Edward Yaqoub,
General Agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments by the general power of attorney certified by the Notary Public of Karkh
under number 383 and dated 30 / 5 / 1955, whose identity is known. He read it, acknowledged its content,
and signed it before me on 24 / 11 / 1960.
Second Notary Public of Baghdad
⟦illegible⟧
Republic of Iraq
10 Fils
Revenue Stamp
Advocate Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Advocate Hadi Latif
Sabri Bldg. - Mustansir Street
82280
Tel. 81442
83065
Lawyers' Office
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Hadi Al-Latif
Mustansir Street - Sabri Tuaima Building
Office Telephones 82280 - 81442 - 83065
257
Evidence is permissible in cases
as it is written evidence
and only testimony was mentioned
Number: L / 381 / 62
Date: 4 / 11 / 1962
To the Honorable Judge of the Karkh Court of First Instance
Responsive brief for lawsuit number 45 / B / 61
⟦line⟧
Lawsuit number 45 / B / 61 was filed in your honorable court, and based on Articles 30 or 61 of
the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, which requires the plaintiff to serve copies of all supporting evidence for his claim.
In view of the filing of the lawsuit against the former dismissed trustee.
We kindly request that the plaintiff be directed to serve us with the following:
First: A copy of the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the agent of the dismissed trustee, number 4915 dated 22 / 8 / 60
Second: A copy of the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the dismissed trustee, number 717 dated 24 / 11 / 59
Third: A copy of the general power of attorney granted by the former dismissed trustee, Mr. Emil Saleh Shlomo, to his agent
Lawyer Anwar Yaqoub, number 383 dated 30 / 5 / 955 and certified by the Karkh Notary Public.
Fourth: A copy of the warning sent by the plaintiff to the former dismissed trustee, which includes the plaintiff's request
to terminate the contract concluded between them by the former trustee waiving the rental fees.
Fifth: A copy of the receipt for the amount of three thousand six hundred dinars, which the plaintiff relied upon in his evidentiary grounds
in the lawsuit petition.
Sixth: All written documents named by the plaintiff in his lawsuit petition (and all other evidence).
Since we have not been served with copies of those documents, and in order for us to be able to respond to the plaintiff's lawsuit, we kindly request
directing the plaintiff to serve us with copies of them so that we can respond to the lawsuit.
With respect.
Lawyer
Shaul Moussa
Lawyer
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
The Letter
Lawyers' Office
Advocate Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Advocate Hadi Latif
Hadi Latif
Sabri Bldg. - Mustansir Street
Mustansir Street - Sabri Tu'aima Building
82280
Office Telephones 82280 - 81442 - 83065
Tel. 81442
83065
Number: L / 381 / 62
Date: 4 / 11 / 1962
To the Honorable Judge of the Karkh Court of First Instance
Responsive Memorandum for Lawsuit No. 45 / B / 61
Lawsuit No. 45 / B / 61 was filed in your honorable court, and based on Articles 20 and 61 of
the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, which requires the plaintiff to serve copies of all supporting evidence for his claim.
In view of the filing of the lawsuit against the former dismissed trustee.
We kindly request that the plaintiff be directed to serve us with the following:
First: A copy of the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the agent of the dismissed trustee, No. 4915 dated 22 / 8 / 60.
Second: A copy of the contract concluded between the plaintiff and the dismissed trustee, No. 717 dated 24 / 11 / 1960.
Third: A copy of the general power of attorney granted by the former dismissed trustee, Mr. Emil Saleh Shlomo, to his agent
the lawyer Edward Yaqoub, No. 383 dated 30 / 5 / 955, certified by the Karkh Notary Public.
Fourth: A copy of the notice sent by the plaintiff to the former dismissed trustee, which includes the plaintiff's request
to terminate the contract concluded between them by the former trustee's waiver of the rental amounts.
Fifth: A copy of the receipt for the amount of three thousand six hundred dinars, which the plaintiff relied upon in his evidentiary grounds
in the lawsuit petition.
Sixth: All written documents named by the plaintiff in his lawsuit petition (and all other evidence).
Since we have not been served with copies of those documents, and in order for us to be able to respond to the plaintiff's claim, we kindly request
directing the plaintiff to serve us with copies thereof so that we may respond to the lawsuit.
With respect.
Lawyer
Hassan Abdullah Muthafar
Lawyer
Shaul ⟦Moussa⟧
Plaintiff: Hamid Majid Al-Obaidi, Lawyer
Defendant: Emil Saleh Shlomo, the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments, his general agent Edwar Yaqoub according to his general power of attorney under general number 383 dated 30 / 5 / 55, certified by the Notary Public of Karkh.
Subject of the Lawsuit: An agreement was previously reached between me and the defendant in his capacity as an agent for the Trustee of the Menahem Daniel Endowments
pursuant to the two contracts concluded between me and him and certified by the Notary Public of South Baghdad, the second under general number
4915 dated 22 / 8 / 960 and 717 dated 24 / 11 / 960, the originals of which are kept in the safe of your esteemed court,
stipulating that the defendant waives to me his share as an agent for what pertains to the aforementioned endowment from the rent amounts for the share of 297 / 504
belonging to the shops and the upper rooms thereof located in the three markets of Khan Ajfan, Bab Al-Agha neighborhood, for a period of
three years starting from 1 Jumada al-Awwal 1380 in exchange for an amount of 27,900 dinars, twenty-seven thousand nine hundred
dinars, which he received from me in cash as they are equal to the rent amounts currently agreed upon with the tenants
occupying the shops referred to above, a schedule of whose names and addresses is attached to this petition, and I have received
from the rent amounts a sum of 1,500 dinars in cash and 1,785 by virtue of promissory notes drawn to the order of the defendant
and endorsed in my name, maturing on their specified dates.
It has become clear that the defendant has concluded another contract with Mr. Khairi Hassoun Al-Ansari, certified by the Notary Public of Kadhimiya
under general number 42129 dated 17 / 12 / 1960 for a period of two years starting from 1 / 1 / 961, and the aforementioned
Khairi Hassoun Al-Ansari has issued warnings in this regard to the occupants of the shops and the bakery in the aforementioned markets -
through the Notary Public of Kadhimiya, copies of which are in the seizure file numbered 11 / H / 61 under general number
47 dated 28 / 1 / 961, requesting the occupants of the markets shown above to pay rent amounts to him or to the Notary
Public of Kadhimiya, and thus the defendant has violated the sixth clause of the two contracts referred to above. Based on
my request, your esteemed court decided on 7 / 2 / 61 to place a precautionary seizure on the defendant's property located in his house
located ⟦...⟧
0 and 2 / 223 and on the common shares of the Zia Hotel, and the aforementioned seizure decision was executed.
Evidentiary Grounds:
1 - The two lease contracts presented in the aforementioned seizure file and kept in the court's safe.
2 - A receipt for an amount of 3,600 dinars.
3 - And all other legal evidence.
Demands:
I request, after taking the necessary measures, to bring the defendant or his legal agent to this court after notifying him with a copy
of the petition, the list of items, and the two contracts kept in the court's safe along with the summons note, and after hearing the clarification
regarding the waiver of rent amounts, to compel him to rescind the contract and pay the claimed amount of 24,615 twenty-four
thousand six hundred and fifteen dinars with the penalty clause amounting to 8,000 dinars, eight thousand dinars, with its interest,
and to issue another decision to place a precautionary seizure on the rent amounts for the Khan Ajnaf markets mentioned above. And to notify -
the tenants of that, a schedule of whose names and addresses is attached herewith, and to charge him with the court costs and attorney fees.
And to consider this lawsuit as one of the simple lawsuits that do not require written notifications.
75 / 56 Personal
Draft
Permission Inventory
732
Personal
The President of the Administrative Committee of the Jewish Community in Baghdad (acting as the Lay Council
of the aforementioned community in addition to his position - his two attorneys, Mustafa Al-Atarli and Ibrahim Azzouz
The Defendant - Emil Saleh Shlomo, the trustee of the endowments of Menahem and Sassoon, sons of Saleh Daniel - his attorney
Lawyer Anwar Yaqoub - his attorney Lawyer Abdul Rahman Zahour
The plaintiff claimed that both Menahem and Sassoon, sons of Saleh Daniel, had endowed during
their lifetime the properties specified in the Sharia deeds issued by the Personal Status Court and the Sharia
Court in Baghdad, and stipulated that their revenue be spent on the endowed entities as detailed in the endowment deed
issued by the Personal Status Court in Baghdad numbered 87 / 935 on ⟦...⟧ and they appointed two trustees, namely
Ezra Menahem Daniel and Saleh Shlomo, and after them the trusteeship passes to their eldest male children from
their descendants and successors, and in the event of the extinction of the lineage of one of the two trustees, the trusteeship is restricted to the remaining trustee or whoever takes
his place, and according to their expressed wish, the trusteeship returns to the Lay Council of the Jewish Community in Baghdad.
One of the two trustees, Ezra Menahem Daniel, died in 1952 without offspring, so the trusteeship was restricted
to the second trustee, Saleh Shlomo. Then the aforementioned trustee Saleh Shlomo died at the end of 1954.
The defendant was considered the trustee of the aforementioned endowments called (Endowments of Menahem and Sassoon
Saleh Daniel) as he is the eldest son of the deceased trustee Saleh Shlomo, according to the deed
issued by this court under number 55/8 on ⟦...⟧
According to the first clause of the deed mentioned above, numbered 87 / 35, issued by
this court, the trustee must submit to the Lay Council the annual budget for each
academic year before its commencement by a suitable period of no less than two months, the budget of the (Gan Yeladim) school, Menahem
Saleh Daniel, provided that this budget contains the total expected revenues to be obtained in the
endowed year for the upcoming academic year in a detailed manner, and how these revenues will be spent and the amount that will
be spent on the school to meet all its needs in a detailed manner and the amount that will remain from these revenues
and not spent by any person, for the purpose of auditing and approving it by the Lay Council and issuing
the permission to spend according to it. The trustee is obliged to spend according to what is recorded in the approved budget
by the aforementioned council. The trustee must submit to the Lay Council at the end of
each academic year and after a suitable period from its end, the account of the past academic year showing
the amount of all revenues for the endowment and how they were actually spent.
- To be continued -
75
6
Personal
⟦line⟧ 2 ⟦line⟧
And pursuant to paragraph (d) of the second item of the endowment deed mentioned above, numbered
87 / 25, if a surplus appears from the endowment revenues after spending the amounts allocated to a specific party, from this surplus
reserve amounts shall be kept in full and in the manner decided and designated by the Lay Council and according to
the method followed by the decision of the Lay Council in this regard.
And since the Administrative Committee of the Jewish Community in Baghdad has taken the place of the Lay Council
of the aforementioned community, it has decided to keep the reserve amounts available from the revenues of the aforementioned endowment
at the Ottoman Bank in Baghdad in the name of the aforementioned Administrative Committee for the account of the Menahem and Saleh
Sillal Daniel endowments.
However, the defendant, despite the warnings directed at him, has refused to implement
the conditions of the endowers and violated the duties incumbent upon him, the details of which are as follows:
A — He did not submit the budget required to be submitted as mandated by item (1) of
deed 87 / 25, for the purpose of auditing it, approving it, and granting permission to act accordingly.
B — He did not submit the accounting statements starting from the date of the death of Saleh Shlomo, the previous trustee,
to the date of the budget approved in April 1951 in a manner corresponding to the printed decisions and what was spent
from them, nor did he submit a detailed account of the receipts and revenues of the aforementioned endowment for the mentioned period.
C — He did not submit the account and the reserve amounts obtained from the revenues regarding their preservation
at the Ottoman Bank in the name of the Administrative Committee for the account of the aforementioned endowment as stipulated in paragraph
(d) of the second item of the aforementioned deed 87 / 25.
For these reasons, the defendant is considered negligent and remiss in the matter of preserving the affairs of the endowment
and in violation of the endower's conditions. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the removal of the defendant for trial and the issuance of a judgment
removing him from the trusteeship of the aforementioned endowments and charging him with the expenses.
Both parties were summoned for trial, and the attorneys whose names are shown at the beginning of this notice attended, and the
court listened to the statements of each of the parties and examined their briefs, and it appeared that the plaintiff attributes to the defendant
negligence and failure necessitating removal as a result of his failure to perform the actions required of him as set forth in the three
paragraphs (A, B, C) shown above only and nothing else. It is the opinion of the plaintiff's attorney that these
reasons are sufficient to remove him from the trusteeship. As for the defendant's attorney, he denied any negligence or failure on his client's part,
and nevertheless, during the trial, he submitted a statement of the revenues and expenditures of the endowment until 3/31/1956 and a copy of
the budget of the Menahem Daniel School, and stated that his client is not refusing to implement the endower's conditions, so there is no ground for his removal
legally. After each of the parties completed their evidence and defenses, the trial was concluded.
⟦line⟧ To be continued ⟦line⟧
Personal 75
- 2 -
The Decision - The plaintiff attributes to the trustee negligence and dereliction in the matters of the trusteeship as a result of his failure
to perform the three acts mentioned above, and therefore he believes that his failure to perform these acts makes
him negligent and derelict, and that this negligence and dereliction warrants his removal.
In the court's opinion, the plaintiff does not have, based on these reasons, the right to remove the defendant from
the trusteeship stipulated for him for two basic reasons.
(The First Reason) is the Sharia reason - and its requirement is the impermissibility of removing the trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated
unless his betrayal is proven, and the plaintiff has not proven betrayal against the defendant.
Professor Ali Haidar says in his book (Arrangement of Years in the Provisions of Endowment): "The judge does not have the right
to remove the trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated unless his betrayal is proven, and if he removes him and appoints someone else in his place, this person
shall not be a trustee. However, if the trustee was appointed by the judge and the trusteeship was not stipulated for him, it is permissible
for the judge to remove him even if his betrayal is not proven according to some, while others say it is not permissible."
It was stated in the Book of Endowment by Professor Abdul Jalil Abdul Rahman Hiti, page 107: "The judge does not have the right
to remove the supervisor appointed by the endower unless it is proven to him by Sharia means what necessitates his removal, such as betrayal
or inability to carry out the affairs of the endowment due to an accidental cause whereby he cannot command, forbid, take, or give.
Even so, his removal is not mandatory; rather, it is mandatory to remove his harm from the endowment, either by removing him or by joining a trustworthy person to him.
He may not remove him merely for challenging his integrity, but he may join a trustworthy person to him to share in the supervision or oversee
his actions and prevent him from the supervisor's known [allowance] if there is corruption in it, otherwise from the yield of the endowment, while observing
the interest and the lack of harm to the beneficiaries. He may remove the supervisor appointed by him absolutely, whether this is a cause
for removal or not, because he is his agent, and the principal may remove his agent whenever he wishes."
He also says on page 108: "The supervisor is considered a traitor and deserving of removal if he acts in the affairs of
the endowment in a manner contrary to the endower's condition, knowing that, if there is a valid condition, or if he committed a crime
or was negligent in the affairs of the endowment or did what is not permissible for him in terms of actions. It follows from this that he deserves removal
if he mortgages a property of the endowment for a debt on the endowment, on himself, or on the beneficiaries, or sold some of it
without a Sharia justification, or reduced the yield of one of the endowment's assets, or planted in the endowment land, or planted for himself,
or lived in the endowment house and did not pay the equivalent rent, or leased the endowment to someone whose testimony is not accepted for him without equivalent rent,
or prioritized spending on beneficiaries over necessary construction or over paying the debt owed by the endowment, or was negligent
in collecting its yields, or stalled the beneficiaries in their rights, or mixed the endowment's money with his own money, or spent it on his own
needs."
He also says on page 101: "If the trustee is removed for lack of preservation and after a period he repents
to God and provides evidence to the one who removed him that he has become fit for the trusteeship, then the judge shall return him to the trusteeship over
the endowment."
- To be continued -
75 6 The Presidency
- 4 -
What is benefited from all of the above is that the judge does not have the right to dismiss the trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated
unless his betrayal is proven. And that negligence and omission, if not gross to the extent of being the cause
that leads to damage to the endowment, is not suitable as a reason for dismissing the trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated. And since
the defendant was not appointed by the court as a trustee over the endowment, but rather the trusteeship was stipulated for him, then his failure
to perform the three acts attributed to him - assuming he did not perform them - is not suitable to be a reason
for his dismissal.
(The Second Reason) which is the reason related to the facts - and since even if it were assumed that negligence
and omission are considered a reason for dismissing the trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated, the court sees in this case that
negligence and omission that call for his dismissal cannot be attributed to the trustee for the following reasons:
1- The fact is that the trustee is outside Iraq and the one managing the endowment is his agent, Mr.
Edward Yaqoub, as became clear to the court from the pleadings of the two parties, and the two agents of the plaintiff admit that the trustee
has been living in Europe for decades (as stated by them in one of their pleadings) and that the two warnings
directed to him were in fact directed to his aforementioned agent. Accordingly, it can be said in light of
the information present in the case file that the trustee does not know that the administrative committee directed two warnings to him
notifying him of negligence and omission and requesting him to perform the three acts subject of the lawsuit, and finally
the lawsuit was filed requesting his dismissal. This is regarding what is available in the case file. As for reality, it is
not unlikely that the trustee actually does not know about all these facts or some of them. Therefore, it is not correct to attribute
negligence to him. It was necessary to direct the warning to the trustee himself requesting the performance of the required acts so that it would be correct
to file the lawsuit requesting his dismissal. Because the actions of the agent cannot result in the dismissal of the trustee himself,
this trustee for whom the trusteeship was stipulated.
As for the saying that the trustee's remaining outside Iraq and his distance from the endowment's affairs in the hands of his agent is a matter that necessitates
his dismissal, that is also incorrect as it was not the subject of this lawsuit because the lawsuit petition
mentioned the reasons that necessitate dismissal, which are the three mentioned above.
2- The Sharia deed numbered 87 / 25 which gave the Ecclesiastical Council the powers
for which the administrative committee acting in place of this council took its decisions requesting the defendant to perform the acts
subject of the lawsuit, this deed was a subject of dispute between the two parties and a lawsuit was filed regarding the annulment of this
deed, and the judgment regarding it was issued and became final on 4 / 8 / 1956. From this date
the trustee was obliged to perform the acts required of him by the remaining and non-cancelled paragraphs of the deed.
While we see that the lawsuit was filed requesting his dismissal on 6 / 3 / 1956, the period between these two dates
is less than two months, and it is not sufficient to verify that the trustee is refusing to implement the deed, especially since he has
submitted a statement of the revenues and expenditures of the endowment until 3/31/1956 and a copy of the budget of the mentioned school.
- To be continued -
75 6 Personal
- 3 -
the pleading, especially since his representative clarified in the pleading that the trustee is not refusing to implement the Sharia deed
indicated and will proceed with its implementation.
3- That the deed issued confirming the appointment of the defendant over the endowment was dated
2/22/1955, and the stipulated one-year period has not passed to determine, upon its expiration, the existence of a breach or failure to manage it
by submitting the account and the budget for it. Likewise, after a short period, the Baghdad Court of First Instance took possession of
the books, houses, and records of the endowment in the lawsuit numbered 2254 / 55. Under such circumstances and complexities,
the court does not see reasons to consider the trustee negligent in his handling of the endowment's affairs.
Therefore, and for all these reasons, the court did not find a Sharia reason necessitating the dismissal of the defendant
from the trusteeship stipulated for him. Accordingly, it was decided to dismiss the lawsuit as it legally warrants dismissal, and to charge the plaintiff
with its costs. The judgment was issued in person, subject to appeal, and was announced publicly.
The Judge
The discharge of the debtor or his acceptance is necessary because, although the role of the debtor in the assignment
is passive, and he has no right to interfere in its conclusion, he should
be informed of the modification that has occurred in his relationship with the creditor by changing
to whom the debt is paid. The assignee is also interested in informing the debtor of the transfer
of the assignment, because if this knowledge does not occur, the debtor will not know
anyone but his original creditor, and his discharge will be valid if he pays him
and ⟦...⟧
Article 267 stated by saying
(The assignor must hand over to the assignee the document of the assigned right and provide him with
the means of proving this right and the necessary data to enable him
to exercise his right)
Since the subject relates to real estate leased to many people,
this article requires:
1- Handing over the lease documents for each of these properties to the assignee.
2- Since custom has been established to take promissory notes for the installments
due, they should, in this case, be submitted.
Article 253, Paragraph 2
3- If the debtor does not terminate his right before the assignment ⟦by way of⟧ notifying him of it. This is done either by a notice paper
directed in the special forms for process servers' papers, or by telegram or a summons
⟦...⟧ and it is assigned in ⟦...⟧ and includes what indicates the occurrence of the assignment
and its essential conditions.
4- It is required to invoke the assignment against third parties that the debtor's acceptance has a fixed date,
and this is nothing more than a mere application of general rules. This is what is understood from the text of Article
⟦...⟧
⟦...⟧
Session | Pleading Day | Reason for Adjournment
1 | |
2 | |
3 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
4 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
5 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
6 | |
7 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
8 | |
9 | |
10 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
11 | ⟦illegible⟧ |
12 | |
13 | |
14 | |
15 | |
16 | |
17 | |
18 | |
19 | |
20 | |
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
With time
⟦illegible⟧ our client did not intend the lease in her contract to fulfill ⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧ provisions of Article ⟦illegible⟧ and cases of Article ⟦illegible⟧ and the court was not ⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧ in contracts without resorting to the lease contract on 2/2/62
Therefore, there is no reason for our client to ask or investigate the duration of the work
of the lessors ⟦illegible⟧ on 22/5/62
In the assignment of rights, the transfer only occurs upon ⟦illegible⟧
1- The objection of the assigned debtor regarding lack of knowledge of the debt concerning the origin of the assignment, so that
the assignment is executed before he knows about it ⟦illegible⟧ in the eyes of the law
So notifying the debtor or his acceptance is necessary because although the role of the debtor in the assignment
of rights is passive and he cannot refuse ⟦illegible⟧ if he misses ⟦illegible⟧
to know about the modification that occurred in his relationship with the creditor, then
the oath may not be taken, placing the assignee as a guarantee, the debtor knows the right
as a subsequent assignment, if this knowledge does not occur, the debtor does not know the performance
past, and his discharge of liability is valid if he paid the debt to
⟦illegible⟧ the debtor ⟦illegible⟧ place of ⟦illegible⟧
And the transfer, if the notification is followed, occurs; there is no relationship between the debtor and the two assignees
on 22/2/58 on 15/7/58
That the obligation of the debtor to the debtor or ⟦illegible⟧ that ⟦illegible⟧ was ⟦illegible⟧
by the text stipulated ⟦illegible⟧ Article 365 which was shown to him ⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧ the law
Rare ⟦illegible⟧
⟦illegible⟧
Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews
Endowment ⟦line⟧
Property Number ::
Land Registry Sequence ::
District ::
Property Type ::
Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews
in Baghdad
Number L /: 69 /
Date: 7/6/1969
Telephone Number: 83531 President, 80452 Secretary
Top Secret
⟦line⟧
Subject / ⟦line⟧
Honorable President of the Investigative Body
Greetings and respect:
Reference to your letter numbered Secret / 84 and dated 8 / 6 / 1969
I present below the answers requested for inquiry in a simplified manner for your kind information " = "
First - Endowment of the late Menahem Salih Daniel.
1 - The late Menahem Salih Daniel endowed the two properties sequence 81 and 88, Taht al-Takiya neighborhood
to be used as a school under the name of Menahem Salih Daniel School according to the deed issued by the Baghdad Court of First Instance
under number 197 and dated July 28, 1924 * Attachment No. (1)
2 - Then he endowed 297 / 504 shares of the two properties 2 and 4 / 57 Bab al-Agha to spend their revenue on the school
mentioned above according to the deed issued by the Baghdad Sharia Court under number 179 and dated 8 Shawwal
1336 and its supplements.
3 - All these properties have had their endowment status registered in the Land Registry records.
4 - The Personal Status Court in Baghdad issued under number 62/853 and dated 15 / 9 / 1962 a ruling
appointing the Administrative Committee for Iraqi Jews as the trustee over the endowments of the late Menahem Salih Daniel.
5 - I submit herewith a table of the revenues of the properties endowed to Menahem Salih Daniel in detail for each
number and door starting from the date the Committee received the trusteeship, i.e., from the year 1962 Attachment No. (2)
Second - Menahem Salih Daniel School.
1 - This school was built on the two endowed properties sequence 71 and 84 Taht al-Takiya and was licensed in the name of the trustee
Salih Shlomo, license number 149 for the year 41, and studies continued there until 1951.
2 - The mentioned school moved in 1951 due to the unsuitability of the building to Al-Sinak in the school building
constructed on plot sequence 1/166, and the school principal notified the Ministry of Education of that in her letter
paragraph (4) numbered 272 and dated 14 / 9 / 51, a copy of which is attached as number (3), and studies continued in this school
in Al-Sinak, and when the Committee took over the administration of the Menahem Salih Daniel endowments, the Committee requested to renew the lease
in the Al-Sinak building in its letter numbered 63/610 and dated 27 / 1 / 1963, a copy of which is attached as number (4)
3 - Due to the unsuitability of the building in Al-Sinak, the school moved to Arasat Bahoushi in 1965 and the
license was renewed in the name of the Administrative Committee under number 325 for the year 1965.
4 - When leaving the school building in Taht al-Takiya, the trustee rented the building in Al-Sinak and the current building
in Arasat Bahoushi, and he in turn rented out the school building in Taht al-Takiya.
To be continued
Name of Tenant | Duration | From | To | Annual Rent Amount | Fils | Dinar