The British mandate, before the establishment of the state of Israel, maintained most Ottoman laws, including those regarding real estate and religious endowments. Such real estate transactions, listed in the land registry (Tabu) were \u201cgrandfathered\u201d into Israel jurisprudence, even if they couldn\u2019t have taken place under Israeli law. As a result, both sides have to convincingly argue as to the legal realities in the 1930s, based on Ottoman law and documents drafted in Arabic.<\/p>\n

The original endowment is translated differently on the part of the plaintiff and on the part of the Waqf, with one interpretation holding that the endowment was a single room and a minaret, while the other holding that the entire house as well as public space around it, including the well, were endowed.<\/p>\n

The Arabic in which the document was written was probably antiquated and formal even at the time, and it is not certain that the endower fully understood all possible interpretations of the scope of his endowment. Conversely, it is possible that he grew aware of the room for expanded interpretation, which is why he wished to revoke the endowment shortly after granting it.<\/p>\n

However, the Waqf trustee refused to return the property, and the Shariah law verdict was that the Waqf is an inalienable endowment which cannot be revoked. Furthermore, the endower\u2019s children failed to appeal the endowment within 10 years of reaching their age of majority.<\/p>\n

This reflects, on the one hand, on the endower\u2019s desires or conclusions nearly a century ago, but also on the family apparently accepting the resulting status quo for several generations.<\/p>\n