T.C.
SUPREME
3. LD

2015/4561 Basis 2016/2442 Decision 23.2.2016 Date
Case : as a result of the court proceedings of the compensation case between the parties, the provision for the acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendants within the period; after the decision was made to accept the appeal, the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:

Verdict : plaintiff in petition to sue; Altunhisar District, Ulukışla Town, Ölezi and Urganlar locality 54 and 658 parcels of real estate crops grown by sheep herds belonging to the defendants were damaged, after which the Bor Magistrate’s Court of law 2013/8 d.determined by the decision of business no. and damage to Real Estate No. 54 parcels 1,048 TL, 658 parcel No. of real estate damage was determined to be TL 1,761, claiming that the cost of product damage and the cost of the detection file as a total of TL 3,492 compensation from the defendants together with legal interest jointly and severally requested and sued.
In their response petition, the defendants requested the dismissal of the case, stating that they did not accept the plaintiff’s claim that they had damaged their fields.
By the court, with the acceptance of the case, it was decided that 2,809 TL of product damage should be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff, the fees and expenses made in the 2013/8 different business file of the magistrate’s Court should be taken from the defendants and the provision was appealed by the defendants.
According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, as well as legal reasons, and in particular, there is no lack of appreciation of the evidence, other appeals are not in place.
The case relates to a claim for damages based on the liability of the animal owner.
In a concrete case, the plaintiff party states that its products in two different real estate that are in use and located in separate positions have been damaged, and the plaintiff witnesses heard in the case have stated that they have examined both real estate separately and that both defendants have personally admitted the damage caused in relation to different real estate.
However, the court determined separately that each defendant should be liable for damage caused by which immovable aspect, while the provision should be established according to the result, it was not right that both defendants were jointly and severally liable for all damage, this issue required violation.
Conclusion: without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is not accurate, since appeals are in place for these reasons, the decision is HUMK.nun 428.in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 23.02.2016 to overturn and return to the appellant if the appeal fee received in advance is requested.