The interpretation of Article 816 of the Civil Code that "... shall be void" as the effect of intercession in the validity of customer transactions has become a source of disagreement among jurists, as to how a valid transaction becomes a void transaction from the first day of its conclusion. Will it be?! How can the regressive effect of receiving shafea be combined with the accuracy of the customer's possessions?! By looking at the jurisprudential records, including the possibility of annulment from the first day of the contract, or its rescission, together with other rulings in the civil law itself, including the validity of the buyer's legal possessions or his ownership of separate interests from the date of the sale to the acceptance of the intercession. The theory of canceling such contracts seems more compatible with the existing legal system and rules. In the matter of material possessions, the two assumptions of the impropriety of the buyer's material possession of the property subject to protection and its permissibility are separated from each other, and in the first case, the buyer is obliged to take possession of the property and agriculture, without the right to receive compensation. However, in the second assumption, despite the buyer's right to dispose of his properties by owning them, if the properties include buildings and trees, there is a possibility of removing them by the intercessor, because taking the intercession causes ownership of the seller by the intercessor