Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 1.Legal Department Basis: 2016/15630 Decision: 2020/1798 Decision Date: 12.02.2020

SUPREME COURT DECISION

COURT :COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CASE TYPE :

LAND>

CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION

In the case between the parties;

Plaintiff, common heirs … in, 101 islands 13, 116 Islands 116, 127 and 148 parcels numbered real estate registered in the name of the son of the defendant during the cadastral determination, but the transaction is intended to kidnap property from the heirs and

by claiming that they were collusive

deeds

he requested registration in his name at the rate of inheritance share with cancellation; also

09.03.2011 Muris No. 139 on the parcel that owns immovable organized by the notary name Testaments with all of 116, 101 Island 19, 30 ada 102, 116, 133, and 140 in the name of his real estate parcel No. 1/3 of the share grandson (the defendant …’s child) and the other defendant …’e, 1/3 cut, other heirs itself with the defendant out of the case and … and …’e is injured on the grounds that the defendant will share about tenkis stored in the request were found.

The defendant …the defendant … stated that the inheritance had other real estate … that the plaintiff’s hidden share was not damaged and defended the dismissal of the case.

By the court, due to the fact that the subject of the case and the real estate are different from the point of view of the defendant … to the detail of the case; from the point of view of the defendant …

“as for the concrete event, 101 islands 13 parcels identified from the subject of the lawsuit and 116 Islands 116, 127 and 148 parcels assigned in the form of donations 01.04.1974 date, 1/2 no place of application of the decision to merge beliefs in terms of real estate and

Deceased

TMK 4721 in the event that the claim on muvaza cannot be heard, its conditions exist. nun 560 to 571. it is clear that it can be the subject of a case of tenkis provided for in its articles. However, there is no request for criticism in the case. In these circumstances,;

Deceased

cancellation and registration based on the legal reason of muvazaası should be decided to reject the case, while it is not right to establish a written decision with a misleading assessment.”as a result of the trial, which was corrupted by the justification, the court decided to dismiss the case.

The decision was appealed by the plaintiff at the time, but the judge’s report was read and received. The case has been reviewed, discussed and considered.

-DECISION-

In the decision to overturn the provision, the decision was made by taking action as shown. With the rejection of the plaintiff’s appeal, which is not in place, the approval of the provision in accordance with the procedure and law and the reasons for the decision to overturn it is written below US $ 25.20. it was unanimously decided on 12/02/2020 that the balance of the approval fee be taken from the appellant.