T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
3.law office

Base: 2013/9856
Decision: 2013/12617
Date of Decision: 12.09.2013

CLAIM FOR RECEIVABLES – THE DEFENDANTS ARE STAKEHOLDERS WITH A ONE-THIRD STAKE IN THE REAL ESTATE SUBJECT TO THE LAWSUIT – THE PLAINTIFF GIVES MONEY TO THE DEFENDANTS SEPARATELY FOR THEIR SHARES – THE DEFENDANTS CANNOT BE HELD SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT GIVEN BY THE PLAINTIFF DUE TO THE RECOGNITION THAT

ABSTRACT: The plaintiff stated that the defendants bought the real estate they owned with 1/3 of the shares out of the title deed and gave the defendants 10.000 TL in exchange for their shares. When the land registry is examined, it is seen that the defendants are stakeholders with a 1/3 stake in the real estate subject to the lawsuit. In the event that the defendant’s shares are certain in the title deed, and it is understood that the plaintiff has given TL 10,000 to the defendants separately for their shares, the defendants must accept that the plaintiff cannot be held severally liable for the total TL 30,000 that the plaintiff has given to the defendants.

(6098 P. K. m. 102, 162) (818 Pp. K. m. 141)

Case: The judgment given by the local court at the end of the procedure of the receivables case between the parties has been appealed by the deci-dents’ attorney.

After it became clear that the appeal request was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:

Decision: In the petition of the deputy plaintiffs, the parties agreed on the sale of real estate numbered 166 islands, 2 parcels in Edirne Merkez, Iskenderkoy, where the defendants have a 1/3 share ownership, the plaintiff paid a total of 30,000.00 TL, including 10,000.00 TL to each stakeholder, the defendants recently purchased this real estate 3. stating that they sold it to a person, if the money paid to the defendants was requested to be returned, they were informed that “the money given is closed, therefore it cannot be returned”, and the defendants were jointly and severally requested and sued for the collection of the 30,000.00 TL paid to the defendants together with the legal interest that will be processed from the date of the lawsuit.

Attorney for the defendants in the petition, the answer, the plaintiff of the right to request the return of the price will begin to process from the date of issue of the right to request that a time-barred, the plaintiff, to the defendant under the agreement for the sale of the land of their money it’s been released this price, payment of which a contract is needed of the conditions for refunds are available if the submitted documents in a document that is not issued receipts other than the owner of the plot of 10.000, T.B.K.102. in accordance with the article, if there is no clearance in the receipt, the payment will be deemed to have been made for the debt, defendants H. P. he asked for the rejection of the case by stating that the case should be dismissed from the point of view of his heirs due to the absence of animosity.

Upon acceptance of the case, the court decided that the 30.000,00 TL will be paid to the plaintiff by collecting it from the defendants jointly with the legal interest from the date of the case, and the verdict was appealed by the defendants’ attorney.

According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the legal requirement, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, other appeals are not in place.

Mutual liability is also expressed in the form of chained liability, mutual indebtedness, chained indebtedness. In private law, fiduciary responsibility is based on the ”presumption of consolation”. The presumption of consolation means that each of the multiple debtors is responsible for the entire debt against the creditor or that the debtor is responsible for each of the multiple creditors. T. No. 6098 overall joint liabilityB.K.162. in article (No. 818 b.K.141. article) is regulated. According to this article, fiduciary liability “If each of the multiple debtors informs that he agrees to be responsible for the entire debt to the creditor, fiduciary liability arises.” that is the case. 2 Of the same substance. the paragraph contains the provision ”If there is no such notification, the fiduciary indebtedness arises only in the cases provided for by law”.

Joint indebtedness, obligation or provision of the Wills Act, a description of each of the borrowers has more than one divisible therefore is obliged to perform all of the actions; if the creditor’s, then only one of the Debtors Act, a time to achieve that holds the place of performance or the performance of others with the verb at the rate of indebtedness is the debt to the creditor to save together.

In the concrete case, the plaintiff stated that the defendants bought the real estate they owned with 1/3 of the shares out of the title deed and gave the defendants 10.000 TL in exchange for their shares. When the land registry is examined, it is seen that the defendants are stakeholders with a 1/3 stake in the real estate subject to the lawsuit. In the face of the fact that the defendants’ shares were clear in the title deed and that the plaintiff gave TL 10,000 to the defendants separately for their shares, it was not considered correct for the defendants to be held severally liable for the total TL 30,000 that the plaintiff gave to the defendants.

Conclusion: In this respect, the provision in writing is invalid without regard to the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, H.U.M.K.nun 428. according to the article, it was unanimously decided on 12.09.2013 that it would be OVERTURNED and returned to the appellant if the appeal fee received in advance was requested.