Can Good Or Bad Intentions Be Considered Spontaneously By The Tribunal?

07 May Can Good Or Bad Intentions Be Considered Spontaneously By The Tribunal?

BUILDING ON SOMEONE ELSE’S PLOT-THE PLOT OF THE BUILDING
– THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS NOT WELL-VERSED .
– THE EXISTENCE OF THE SITUATION TO BE OBSERVED BY THE COURT-CALIPHATE
THE CLAIMING PARTY MUST BE OBLIGED WITH PROOF
Summary: someone else’s land on his own equipment with the value of the building more than the value of the land
to be able to request the assignment of the land and the building’s literature in exchange for the owner of the materials
To the realization of the requirement that he has acted with good faith by the provisions of Article 650 of the Civil Code
it has been found bound. Case and presumption of the situation in the event of the need to take care of the aspect expected from him
the provision, which has been determined that it cannot claim goodwill by law as it has not been used.
the transfer request of the owner based on this article cannot be accepted. From the provisions of this article
as with the legal license and so on.
matters must be taken into account by the court, and there is a legal and legal obstacle to this.
is not included.
(1086 P. K. m. 75, 238, 239) (743 P. K. m. 3, 650)
Whether good and bad will can be taken into consideration by the court and the burden of beyyine to the parties
law offices a copy of the Supreme Court in matters of style and pointing the first and 22.3.1949 date and 8743/1384
Case law between the rulings of the fifth Law Department dated 29.3.1949 and numbered 3683/857
the fifth Legal Department of the Court of Cassation with which the dispute was found is numbered 72 and dated 17.6.1949
examples of the above-mentioned injunctions were reproduced and distributed by writing and dated 11.12.1950
the meeting was informed to members of the General Assembly that the talks would begin at 9.5 pm on Monday.
Today, the meeting of the board (elliki) is seen as participating in the Quorum of the negotiation accrues
the dispute has been discussed under the chairmanship of First President Fevzi Bozer.
after the papers were read and the summary of the incident was explained by the first president;
Fifth Legal Department Head Y. Kemal Arslansan; case law dispute between the decisions of the two chambers,
In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code,
stating that he cannot make a claim of goodwill by law due to his lack of care
no one has to prove the evil to the other side whether or not it will come, good and evil.
the court meets at the points of whether it can be taken as an official consideration.
Our department’s opinion and opinion starting from the summary of the incident that caused the conflict and the cause of the conflict.
I’ll explain your thinking.

The boundaries of the site and the fact included in the zoning plan at the external gate in Ankara
twenty-six buildings which were built on land deed whose land area was also determined by cadastre
determination of the evidence on the cases against the owners of the equipment about the destruction of the report
as shown, the land owned in violation of the city plan without obtaining the required license from the municipality
the buildings that were built on the night to be demolished because there is no exorbitant damage
it was decided to prevent the actual interventions of the supply owners.
1-the equipment that makes the buildings without making the necessary investigation about whether the land is deed or not
can the owners legally claim goodwill?
2-the person whose situation has become apparent who cannot claim good faith by law, and the person whose badness is other
does the party need to prove it?
3-supplies, which have not yet confirmed that there is a place belonging to the Treasury in the vicinity and adjacent to it.
badness to them because the owners built the buildings because they thought they belonged to the Treasury
could their plea that it could not be attributed be worth the compliment to the deed?
4-the owner of the provisions of Article 650 of the Civil Code is required to make use of the provisions
how will his well-being be sought?
5-can good and evil be considered by the court?
In cases where goodness is stipulated for the birth of a right, it is his body that is the principal. Proof claiming caliphate
with IS payer. There is no dispute in this explicit provision of the law. However; Civil
The second paragraph of the third article of the law did not give the attention expected of him by the provisions of
the evil of the real caliphate of anyone who cannot claim to be of good faith by law.
the emergent state. In this case, your constant and assuredly evil is now proof to the other side.
there will be no reason and no reason. Binaenaleyh registered on the claimant in the deed and kadarstroca
limits and quantities of land determined on the city plan despite the mümanaata night contrary
as twenty-odd buildings have made the villainy of the owners of the equipment in the event to prove to the owner of the plot
they have not gone to the world to be made and they have done the building with the belief that it belongs to the treasure.
the second paragraph in question is that their defense against attribution is not worthy of compliment.
it complies with the provisions of the Civil Code and contravenes the provisions of procedure with Article Six of the Civil Code.
is not. The owner of the building with his own supplies to someone else’s Land Act with good faith
he may, as he has done, benefit from the provision of Article 650 of the Civil Code, but
the city despite mene at night on the land owned without the attention expected from them
supply owners who build buildings contrary to his plan cannot legally claim goodwill. By law
whoever appears unable to claim good deeds is evil. Thus, the owners of supplies
there is no room to prove their evil deeds to the landowner. Facts and presumption
it seems that this situation is officially taken into consideration by the court. And it is a record in our legislation to prevent this and
there is no provision.
Conclusion; the owner of a building in a place that he thinks belongs to him claims to be well-being
can be found: or as in the event that we can acquire the property in the future to a place belonging to the Treasury
the owners of the building can not claim goodwill by law. Goodwill by law
the badness of a person who cannot claim is also apparent and thus his badness is fixed.
and the other party shall not be held liable for proof of the malice of a person who is a beneficiary. In such cases, good and evil shall be treated by the court.
resen is taken into consideration. Decision of our department 650 th with the second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code
it is fully compliant with the provisions of the article.
Şevkati Özkutlu, head of the first legal department; if there were only one or two acts, the law would be included
what it would take. When happiness is the real thing, it’s the power of water. That’s what good is. But the other side is no.
he will say that Presumption is evil in its remit.
Suat Bertan; there are two main rulings in Tawhidi jurisprudence. 650 th article mucibince what the building has done
will it be? There is no difference in terms of state and ownership. If it enters article 912, 650
the Pearl substance is not applied. 650 th article applied if building on the street as a state
cannot be obtained. When a person claims a claim based on a claim, its main elements accrue
he must prove it.
Imran Öktem; according to the third article of the Civil Code, goodwill is the principal. Proof to the contrary
should work. However article 650 acts with the good of the owner of the supplies to make use of this article
there is a requirement to be made. The party wishing to benefit from a provision of the law
it must prove the elements that matter composes. This is in accordance with Article Six of the Civil Code.
Here, the presumption in the third clause cannot be used by the Quartermaster. Because, Article 650 of this charter
it says its existence should also be proved. If you had to take advantage of the presumption in Article three
650 th article (vazim holder, whose malice has not been proven) was referred to as. Another reason for this is
has. There’s a land in the middle that’s registered in the deed. Another person comes in and builds here. Someone else
the badness in building his plot is obvious and obvious. That the master of supplies is acting well for us
he has to put forward a case that we accept that he is of good faith. The cases he asserts are good
if it shows, and the owner of the plot denies these cases, it is of course very unlikely that the proof of these cases will be given to the owner of the equipment.
he’ll fall. For example: he bought the land from the owner and built the building with his consent…
Or he has a deed in his hand. The boundaries in this bond have made itself a mistake and so on….
as… otherwise, he cannot predict the burden of proof by saying müjerret (I am good). Essentially
There is also a deficiency in the translation of Article 650. Aslı (the value of the building clearly plot
to the owner of the property of the party majmuun who has good fortune rather than its value
you can ask for the assignment). In other words, if the owner of the provision is the owner of the good deed, he will ask for the assignment. Destroyed plot
if the owner is of good faith, the owner of the land will ask for the assignment of mecmuunun to the owner of the supplies. Of this article if
if your drill needs to be based on the presumption of Article three, we’re in a dead end. Proving who has bad faith
is going to? However, the owner of the land and the owner of the materials claim to be good separately according to the
they will be asked to give a sign of good, and each will be asked to give a sign of good.
Whichever one proves his good will be taken into consideration. In the event the owner of supplies (I burasını
he says, ‘I built the building as the location of the treasure’. He said such an accusation does not imply goodwill.Fifth Legal Department Head Y.K. Arslansan; does Malice have to be proven in any case? And
can the court be resentful? At its points, discord gathers. First Law
His apartment needs to be proven evil. On the discovery of land deed places
it does not require the owners of the building materials to be considered as bad and it is in case law that cannot be taken into consideration by the court. However
it is understood that he did not take the expected care of the person who claims to be well-being.
cannot be found. The badness of a person who cannot claim good deeds by law is constant and constant.
I think that there is no need for proof of the Shayi issues is the sentence of procedural rules. In this case
evil needs to be proved to the other side and there is no place. The reason and considerations
there is no need to prove malice because of it. The court’s case and treatment is good and
there is no legal record or provision for him to take an official view by appreciating his malice. Halin
the second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code, in which good and evil can be exploited.
it’s a matter of clear judgment.
Due to the scarcity of time, leaving the next session to continue the negotiation tensip
has been made. 11.12.1950
– (Second Session: 14.2.1951 Wednesday Time: 9.30)
Since the time has passed since the first session, it is possible that the rulings on the subject of conflict have been read.
and after the incident was explained again by the first president,;
The head of the first legal department, Şefkati Özkutlu, said in the last session about the subject of the dispute.
my thoughts are high with the clarity I want and in the light of logic that can erase all darkness
I didn’t report it to the board. Now I’ll work on that in my exposure.
From the motion of the higher Fifth Law Office, which states that there is a case law dispute in my words
I’m going to start.
In this motion, the high fifth Legal Department has the right to defend the well-being of those who are being sued.
a statement on whether the plaintiffs had made a claim of malevolence even though they stated they had been found
what does not mean to. The department says in its thesis: “Property savings of the land subject to litigation
the due diligence required by law by making an investigation into the aspect of the situation required
without showing and without getting a license from the municipality in the Department of procedure written in the provision paragraph
the defendants, who had the buildings constructed at the time and under circumstances and circumstances, are entitled to a aspect of goodwill.
he can’t make a bet. Since the building was under construction, it was believed that the land belonged to the Treasury.
the defense against the claim based on the deed is worth a compliment.
the provisions of the court of first instance were upheld by the agency on the grounds that it was not of nature.
Another decree of the same nature is that no evidence of malice has been shown by the First Law Office.
the fact that the title of the state and the proper place is considered to be evidence of the defendants ‘ malice is corrupt.
bet’s broken.”

the evidence shows the presumption and the court admonished that the person being prosecuted is evil.
it means he’s accepted. Since the case law of our department is in this center, there is a case law conflict.
it means there’s no point. Although the plaintiff did not claim any wrongdoing, the court did not issue the promissory notes.,
he found this evidence and presumption by himself from the statements of experts and even from the claim and defence.
and again, if he has decided that those who are being sued by himself are evil, I believe
the court has no jurisdiction.
Now the plaintiff has shown evidence and presumption of malice and they are appreciated by the court
let us state that’s accepted is malicious, sue. If the court, the case is that
after receiving the case, he asked the defendant for evidence of his well-being, if he did not show it, first instance.
the verdict of his court is also correct, as is the confirmation of the fifth chamber.
This style does not contradict the case law of our department.
The high Chamber says that there is a case law dispute between the decisions of our chamber and its own decisions in its submissions.
not content with showing that there is also conflict between the decisions of our department and the undersecretary
he has also indicated to the High Council that we have returned from our jurisprudence.
It is connected to the thesis of the higher Fifth Law Department and is open between the two decrees found in our department.
there is no case law difference.
The person named Seyit filed a lawsuit against Ismail and his friends in Ankara court
to pour mudbrick on the land and to make huts on the land.
he wanted to prevent the interference of wagers because they had committed unlawful rape by means of and
at the end of the trial, the claims of those being sued about having good faith have a legal reason
since the damage was not sustained and the damage was not exorbitant in the demolition and the plaintiff did not consent to the foundation
the decision made by our department regarding the thickness of the buildings on 10 May 947 stated that ” the place where they intervened is a
claims of those who are sued that they received a notary deed or ordinary deed from someone else to the deed deed
there will be no heir to the claim based on and Halim of those who are being sued at the time of building the plot
if he finds another place after the declaration that the plaintiff has consented, he will demolish the building
the others admit that the plaintiff had no news or knowledge while they were building the building.
since they took action, the objections were not in place and the bet was upheld.
This is what the warrant says. One of the Sued has accepted the case and the others have good faith.
I mean, they knew that the land belonged to the plaintiff, but they didn’t know about it.
the decision of the court of first instance was upheld by the department because they admitted their actions. This is our warrant.
as such, it is not natural to say that there is a conflict between the decisions of our department.

Member Imran Öktem; there is no exchange among the decrees on the subject of controversy. Is why it is called. One person is the same
he is filing two lawsuits against two individuals based on the deed of deed. Defendants defend the same defense in both cases
they’re putting it forward. The court of first instance makes the same decision. One of them goes to an apartment, gets tastic.
The other goes to another apartment (his malice must prove to the plaintiff) so he breaks down. Among the decisions of the circle
the exchange is obvious.
The owner of a flat couldn’t prove his goodness. Says that are malicious. Other apartment villainy plot
the owner says to prove it. As for the basis of the work: the owner of the supplies based on Article 650 of this article
it is responsible for proving the conditions and elements it seeks, and cases which in the meantime will indicate good faith. Cause
I explained it in the previous session. The case law of the Supreme Court was also at this center. First Law
His high office subsequently changed this case law. New case law worries land owners and
it must have provoked unrest. If a plot within the deed is put in a night within a night
how can I prove the ill will of the builder? Unrest for these case law land owners
menbai is going to have to be removed.
It is said: Since the owner of the land is the plaintiff and since the owner of the supply claims the villainy. He
however, the owner of the plot should prove the villainy. Because beyyine müddeiye is a trustee. This opinions
is incorrect. Because the two cases are intertwined. Land owner’s case deed to the place fuzuli
intervention is semen. In this case the owner of the land will prove that this place is mutasarrif by deed.
There is no need to seek proof other than him. A lawsuit by the Quartermaster against it
there is. It’s based on Article 650. He wants to assign the land to himself. Such that the owner of the supply
had it not been for his case, his intervention would have been barred. The proprietor must also prove the reciprocity case. Another
in between the circumstances, cases that indicate well-being will also prove to be the Quartermaster. Because the assignment
in his case, he is the breadwinner. As a result, the last case law of the first legal department is given to beyyine
it is not right to predict burdens.
Member Vehbi Yekebeş, the basis of the explanation given by the relevant parties during the negotiations that took place
there’s nothing left to say about the matter. There’s a point when I renounce my promise.
I will dwell on it; and I will also make a short sacred for it: Once Upon a plot
construction to be done, in principle, is subject to the land; in legal terms, the land will be a lump sum. Principle
however, in the construction on this road, the consent of the owner of the land or the owner of the supplies is present.
what if it’s not? The main thing in this is the old rendering, which is necessary for this burden to the owner of the error.
it is loading. It would allow this reinstatement to do no harm. Hurt if it matter if,
the present condition shall be retained with a maximum or minimum compensation if it has been done in due course. This
the value of the building made on someone else’s land rather than the value of the land open to the public
in the case of the “owner of supplies acting with dignity”, the ownership of the land shall be transferred to him with a reasonable compensation.
he could ask for it. Here, three conditions are required for acquiring land ownership: 1-a clear excess of building value,
2-the wishfulness of the Quartermaster,
3-Muhik compensation,
Today’s negotiation has given up on the first and third terms and the need for the accretion of the second.
involves.
Here, as an essential base for the owner of the materialization of the event for the wishnuniyesi
A case like Mr. Suat Bertan said should be determined and appreciated before the judge.;
Until, according to the dominant substance, is there any happiness? So he can transfer it. Nonetheless
after the owner of the material proves his / her wishfulness through the draught of the verb attributed to him / her, the other
the party also considers the substance of this case according to its own opinion and the wateriness of the construction owner.
may prove. In this respect, for both sides, the possibility of mutual happiness and suiniyeti
dair Mr. Şekkati Özkutlu’s opinion is also in place.
So what is the proof with and how? The reasoning procedures determine the reasons of Subut as follows: confession, written
beyyine, official record, discovery and expert report, shahadet v.P.
The owner of the quartermaster who set up the night lodge here, I thought it was the property of the state; I raped him. Apparently
he says that someone else is the plaintiff, and that he will attest to his ill will. If this defense is tested and tested a little bit
it is seen that there is an agreement with the state that owns the plot, its treatment, its own movement.
it has nothing to do with legitimacy. I believe that this rape of the state, in certain forms,
he has no defense other than to say that he was going to give it to me, that he was going to give it to the state; that is, his movement.
the fact that he is wrong is fixed by his own confession, which is one of the Subut proofs. Wishful thinking in this article
it is completely objective. I mean, this guy’s gonna GASB this building into a land that’s not his.
he set it up with the intention of inventing magsubunminhi in the circle of circumstances that will come into existence in the future. Therefore
objektivmant suiniyesi is rare. In fact, for example, with the intention of encroaching on the plot of (X) the plot of (S)
if he raped and said that he wanted to rape the plot of (X), this intention was to rape the plot of S.
it’s not a brainchild of misogyny. In the matter of property, there is no difference between the state and the individuals.
It is subject to the same provision.
First president; in Article 650 of the Civil Code ” the value of the building is clearly from the value of the land
rather, the owner of the supplies who acts with Good Will is entitled to compensation in exchange for a muhik mecmuunun
he may ask that his property be given to him.”
It is understood from this article that the owner of the provision for the birth of the right of fundamental act with good faith.
must be made. Article three of the Civil Code
it is his body that is the main thing in the circumstances that are conditioned to be wishful thinking.
To prove the caliphate in the form of the body of happiness falls to the party that claims the evil. Although
In the sixth article of the Civil Code, ” the law does not command the caliphate of each and every one of them.
it is obligatory to prove”, although it is written that the caliphate was ordered in the third article, the burden of the beyyine in the form of the body of wisdom, the claim that it was acted with malice.
whoever places his trust in the side. But when is good supposed to exist? The third item is to this matter
his second paragraph answers plainly. In this paragraph (however, according to the case expected from him
no one who does not care can claim to be wishful thinking) is called. Our law, from itself
he does not assume that anyone who does not exercise the expected attention and attention is of good faith. Bad faith in this case
it’s self-constant. Because, to avoid the attention and attention expected of him, with malice
Mousavi is. There is no need for further proof of evil or good.
As to whether the court can take evil or good into consideration by itself;
according to the Sarah of Article 650 mentioned, goodwill is one of the main elements of the case. Binaenaleyh
in the claims and defenses of the parties, it is necessary to chant with certainty. If this matter is ambiguous
the court shall decide according to the case by taking explanation from the parties by the seventy-fifth article of procedure.
is obligated to give.
In both cases, the land within the city, which is included in the zoning plan and registered in the deed without cause and due to
according to the case, the defendant’s well-intentioned approach to construction by not taking care of himself is expected.
the rules of law are not available to assume. Although the plaintiff, the defendant in the lawsuit is bad
if the defendant has claimed that he intended to do so, the court will respect the defendant’s well-being and the evidence will be appreciated.
prove the plaintiff’s claim of malice, as it has been concluded that he cannot make his claim
there is no obligation. For this reason, the decision of the fifth Legal Department is more in line with the provisions of the law
I am of that opinion. Ultimately saying;
The subject of the dispute is the malice of the person who cannot, by law, claim goodwill.
whether the party needs to be proved and whether good and evil can be taken into account by the court.
it constitutes considerations that cannot be taken.
To prove to the other party the malice of the original by the First Law Department of the Supreme Court, and to prove to the other party the good and the bad.
the Supreme Court of Appeals, even though it is in its case law that malice cannot be taken into consideration by the court.
The Fifth Chamber of law cannot legally assert good deeds against the other side of anyone’s malice
it is no longer necessary to prove it and this situation can be taken into consideration by the court.
the provisions of Articles three, six, 650 of the Civil Code of the same event
there is a discrepancy in the meaning and application styles.
By the provisions of Article three of our civil code, goodwill is legally required for the birth of a right.
it is the fundamental basis on which his body is the real one. The party claiming the caliphate by nature with proof
it’s homework. However, in accordance with the second paragraph of this article, according to the requirements of the situation is expected from him.
the real caliphate of no one who can claim to be of good faith by law because he has not taken care of it
in this case, the main principle is applied to prove the badness to the other side.
collecting your reasons and won’t. Proving a fixed and conclusive point to the other party
the sixth of the Civil Code which regulates the form and style of the burden of beyyine to go to the world.
it does not contradict any aspect of the procedural provisions with its article.

Who has built more than the value of the land with his own supplies on someone else’s land
to be able to request the assignment of the land and the building’s literature in exchange for the compensation of the owner of the quarter
Article 650 of the Civil Code stipulates that he has acted with good faith.
it was based on accrual. Case and presumption of the situation in the event of the necessity of the aspect itself
as he did not take the expected care, it became apparent that he could not make a claim of goodwill by law.
the assignment request of the owner of the equipment based on this article cannot be accepted. From the provisions of this article
as with the legal license and so on.
there is no legal or legal impediment to this.
Some Turkish and Swiss authors mentioned in the explanation of the third article of the Civil Code 650
the fact that the article Pearl has been shown as an example is also legal for the reasons described above.
and to anyone who appears unable to claim goodwill, the provision is that the main rule will be Shamil.
can not be removed.
Conclusion; in case of fact and presumption, the situation has emerged that the law cannot claim goodwill.
that no one who is, will have any more reason and reason to prove evil to the other side, and that the case
good and evil, which gives birth or disposes of his right, shall in this case be ex officio by the court.
it was decided on 14.2.1951 by a majority that passed two-thirds.