Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 5.Legal Department Basis: 2019/2987 Decision: 2020/2936 Decision Date: 20.02.2020

Abstract: since it is understood that the notary notices made from the point of view of his heirs are considered invalid, it is not thought that the acceptance of the case should be decided from the point of view of this defendant, given that the expropriation process has been finalized from the point of view of the defendant, although it is not true; since the elimination of this error does not require a retrial, the provision should be corrected and approved.

(2942 P. K. m. 17)

17 of the Expropriation Act between the parties.at the end of the trial due to the cancellation and registration case based on the article: the above days and numbers given for the rejection of the case were examined by the Supreme Court of Cassation, the plaintiff was requested by the petition given by the administrative attorney, the documents in the file were read and considered necessary after the dispute was understood:

DECISION

The Case Was Filed Under Section 17 Of The Expropriation Act.the title deed based on the article is related to the cancellation and registration request.

In accordance with the decision to overturn, which was followed by the court, the decision was made by examination and processing; the decision was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff’s administration.

It is not in place because the plaintiff’s attorney relates to aspects that are finalized by overturning other appeals that are outside the following bend. But;

About the real estate requested for registration by the defendant … 7. Court Of First Instance 2010/511 E., 2013/177 K. Department of non-expropriation forfeiture compensation case filed in dossier 2017/6461 E., 2018/10342 K. as a result of the correction of the decision made in the numbered file, it is understood that the notary notices made from the point of view of the heirs other than Maliki muris …with 1/4 share of the property subject to the case are considered invalid, considering that the expropriation process has been completed from the point of view of the defendant … it is not considered that the decision should be taken to accept the case from the point of view of this defendant,

Although it is not true; removing this error does not require a retrial,
(1) of the provision paragraph of the reasoned decision (denial of the case of the plaintiff’s deputy) to remove the phrase from the provision, instead (with the partial acceptance of the case … province, … district, … District, 116 island 58 parcel of real estate Muris …’s 1/4 share belonging to the heir defendant …’s share on behalf of the Treasury registration and registration, rejection of the case filed from the point of view of other defendants) to write the sentence,

It was decided unanimously on 20.02.2020 that the provision be corrected and upheld. (¤¤) < / b