Executive Bankruptcy Code No. 82 of 2004 “The following things cannot be foreclosed:

article .82/1-4.bend, “If the debtor is a farmer, he and his family have land and farm animals that are necessary for their livelihood’,

article .82/5.“If it is necessary for the administration of the debtor and his family, the debtor will prefer a dairy buffalo or cow or three goats or sheep and their quarterly feed and bedding.’’

article .82/1-7.clause,2.the sentence reads” ” The amount that is necessary for the livelihood of the debtor himself and his family, whose livelihood is exclusive of raising animals, and the quarterly feed and bedding of these animals”,

Which is regulated under the heading ’ Confiscation of Puppy Animals”, art.according to 83/b, “In animal liens, puppies that need to be cared for by their mothers cannot be confiscated separately from their mothers, as well as their mothers cannot be foreclosed separately from their offspring.”

On the other hand, Article 5199 of the Law on the Protection of Animals no.5/5 “It cannot be foreclosed due to the debt of the owners of houses and ornamental animals that are cared for, especially in the house and garden, without the purpose of commercial purposes.” he has given place to his judgment.

The provisions of both laws are considered together when 82, 83/b, unless exceptional circumstances exist, as specified, Freight, Passenger, land animals, and of animals, although it is possible the seizure can put a price on a particular trade,the need to Law No. 5199, especially the seizure of the animals cared for within the home and garden, it is not possible.

A common situation in foreclosures of large-headed or small-headed animals that do not have exceptional conditions, 3. it is the fate of a person’s ration claims on living animals.

Article 97/a of the Executive Bankruptcy Code of 2004 – (October 18/2/1965-538/55 Art.) A person who holds a movable property is considered his owner. Even if the debtor and third parties hold the movable property together, the property is considered to be in the debtor’s hands. It is assumed that they are those whose belonging to women, men and children is clearly understood by their nature from the goods in places where they live together, or those who have customs, customs, art, profession or occupation. The burden of proving the contrary of this presumption falls on the person who claims it. The claimant for rations is obliged to show and prove the legal and actual reasons and events that require him to acquire the property and keep it in the hands of the debtor.

3. Who claims rations on live animals in live animal foreclosureas for the person, the SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION 21. IT’S THE LAW OFFICE. 2007/25774, K. 2008/16917, T. in the imprint dated 3.11.2008 :

SUMMARY: In the foreclosure process performed at the borrower’s address, it is considered that the ownership of the real estate located at the borrower’s address belongs to the borrower. This is a legal presumption. 3 Of these confiscated goods. in case of belonging to a party 3. a person must prove this claim with strong and conclusive evidence. Otherwise, the ration claim cannot be proved by making a statement only.

DECISION : The dispute relates to a ration case filed by a third party based on Articles 96 and the continuation of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code.

The plaintiff is the third person, the debtor’s son, and since the foreclosure was carried out on 20.03.2006 in the absence of the debtor and in the presence of the plaintiff’s third person in the animal barn located in the garden of the debtor’s house, the presumption of ownership provided for in Article 97/a of the IIK is for the benefit of the debtor and therefore the creditor. 3. Contrary to this presumption. it must be proved by a person with strong and conclusive evidence.

In the file of records and documents; confiscated cattle, foreclosures on behalf of the plaintiff after trial and before the opening of the enterprises registered with tr10000007763 no 07.11.2006 dated 12.01.2007 has been registered in the system on the day before the pet passport and documentation 1000000191500 4 TR; TR991000699218; No. of bovine animals and TR99100062716 earrings TR100000040904 it is understood that the date of birth of the year 2002. The witnesses who were heard said that the plaintiff’s third party purchased the foreclosed cattle with a bank loan in April 2006.

The work to be done in this case by the court, the plaintiff, on behalf of lien after the date TR10000007763 business number with the number recorded in the system ( TR 1000000191500; TR991000699218; No. TR100000040904 TR99100062716 and earrings), from the date of bovine animals since the birth of the first animal passport facility is registered in the name of kim, the plaintiff transferred to the result that will be researched in detail the reasons and dates should be decided according to research and procedures to be incomplete when made in written form and it is against the law requires you to break it.

In this case, the objections of the respondent creditor to the appeal aimed at these aspects must be accepted, and the provision must be overturned.

CONCLUSION : It was unanimously decided on 03.11.2008 that the provision would be OVERTURNED for the reasons described above, and that the appeal fee would be returned to the defendant (Creditor) upon request.

Court of Cassation 8. Legal Department Base No:2015/13159DEPARTMENT No:2015/19176K.Date: On the imprint dated 26.10.2015:
K A R A R: Plaintiff 3. the deputy of the person stated that the animals belonging to his client were confiscated on 05.03.2012, the animals subject to the foreclosure had nothing to do with the debtor, at the address where the foreclosure was made 3. the person explained that there is an animal farm owned by the company and demanded that the decision be made to remove the liens on the animals seized and hand them over to his client with the acceptance of the ration claim and sued.
1- The information and documents contained in the case file should be discussed and there is no aspect contrary to the procedure and law in the evaluation of the evidence based on the justification of the court decision, plaintiff 3.when the passports submitted to the file by the person are examined, they are confiscated from animals.. plaintiff 3 on 8.7.2011 of cattle number 1, that is, before the birth of the debt.since it is understood that the person was born in the enterprise owned by the company, the defendant has the right to refuse the creditor’s deputy’s appeals against the said cattle,
2- As for the appeal of the defendant creditor’s deputy’s decision on other animals subject to foreclosure other than cattle specified in paragraph 1; The foreclosure subject to litigation was made in the presence of the debtor. For this reason; The presumption of ownership in Article 97/a of the IIK is for the benefit of the debtor and therefore the creditor. With the ability to prove any evidence to the contrary the presumption the burden of proof in the third person, which have foreclosed the animals that belong to them, animal, animal passports and passports submitted as evidence, claiming that there is a file with the numbers of the animals offered to the research topic of the earring ear passports do not confirm each other. During review of the decision dated 26.2.2015 appeal to turn back the file on 23.3.2015 Deeply inserted between agriculture and livestock Directorate attached to letter dated as of the date of the vesting date and the animals on the list 23.3.2015 there are businesses where it is located; the animals in the business who he was born to whom the requested information has not been provided at which date in the past, while in the solution to the dispute has not shown enough.

result

Large-headed and small-headed animals are securities, and their actual foreclosure may be in question.

It is possible to find out whether there are animals registered in the name of debtors / debtors in the Provincial or district Directorates of Agriculture by writing to the client that large head and small head animals registered in the name of debtors / debtors can be found out. But here the information from the Directorate of Agriculture is only in the form of whether there is an animal registered in the passport on behalf of the person. As provided for in the supply and explanation, the presumption of ownership in Article 97/a of the IIK is for the benefit of the creditor. The person who claims rations can prove the contrary to the presumption with all kinds of evidence. However, the Supreme Court 17.Legal Department 2012/13033 E. The decision is also; He considered the evidence based on the claim of fortification for ANIMALS WITH EARRINGS as conclusive evidence, and concluded that the claim of fortification was not proven for claims based on the statement for ANIMALS WITHOUT EARRINGS.

You can read our other articles from clicking here.