T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
8.law office

Base: 2014/2640
Decision: 2014/11919
Date of Decision: 10.06.2014

THE CLAIM THAT HE WILL RECEIVE AN INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE SHARE – THAT INTEREST SHOULD BE RULED ON IN THE CASE AS VALID FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION – THE CASE WILL BE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND THE INADMISSIBILITY OF DECIDING TO CONDUCT LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF RECLAMATION

SUMMARY: The case is related to the request that he will receive to participate and in such cases, interest must be decided in accordance with the article of the law effective from the date of the decision. It was also not considered correct that the court decided to conduct legal proceedings against the defendant from the date of the case and reclamation by collecting the receivables from the right to participate and the receivables arising from the right to inheritance.

(4721 Pp. K. m. 5, 202, 220, 225, 232, 235, 236, 240, 499, 575, 639, 641, 642, 658) (743 P. K. m. 170) (4722 P. K. m. 10) (6098 p. K. m. 146) (818 P. K. m. 125)

Case: M. A. T. with M. E. T. Ankara 7 regarding the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case in which DEC will receive an increase in the value between them and participate. On 08.10.2013, the provision No. 1460/1283, which was issued from the Family Court, was requested by the Supreme Court to be examined by the plaintiff’s deputy and the defendant’s deputy parties by holding a hearing. After reviewing the file, it was understood that the work was subject to a hearing, and a call sheet was sent to the parties, which was appointed on Tuesday, 10.06.2014, for the hearing. On the day of the hearing, the appellant’s deputy Counsel E. He. and the deputy plaintiff from the opposite side is Lawyer A. E. they arrived. After the hearing was started and it was understood that the appeal request was within the time limit and the oral statement of those present was heard, the hearing was terminated; the file was examined and considered necessary:

Decision: The deputy plaintiff, his client and the trustee G.’s in 1988, married his wife in 2006, received in marriage the Union of Island No. 10 26183 bought the parcel number 12 on the independent part, contributed largely to the receipt of the immovable of the proxy and the real estate is acquired by explaining that it was used as a residence and family marital property TMC 240. according to the article, with the will to participate and will receive a share of the increase in value, the share of legal inheritance on account of 1/4, it is not enough if the price is determined by adding the family’s residence on the question of the recognition of property rights in land registration and the share of the inheritance and property rights of the defendant 114.385,00 TL to the warehouse that I decided I wanted to give tuition deposit amount requested in the petition dated 29.04.2013 Correctional 190.625 increased to TL.

The defendant’s deputy stated that the case was filed unwarranted, that the plaintiff had no contribution to the receipt of the real estate subject to the lawsuit, that the trustee G.he argued that Adana is one of the richest families in Adana, that the real estate was purchased with the money that fell into the share of the inheritance when his father died, and that the plaintiff did not have a rightful reason to ask for self-determination, and that the case should be dismissed.

Partial acceptance of the case by the court, a total of 123,040.81 TL, the remaining part of 10,000.00 TL from the date of the case, as the plaintiff will receive participation and inheritance, together with the legal interest from the defendant from the date of reclamation, since the plaintiff claims ownership of the house by paying for the right of inheritance and participation, the defendant’s right of inheritance and participation fee is 244.346,84 TL and 30.335,34 TL for the improvement of the house is considered to be covered by this money for a total of 274.682,18 TL.participation will be offset by the plaintiff’s heritage and take 151.641 s,37 TL by the plaintiff with legal interest from the date of the decision process has been paid by the defendant when the plaintiff on behalf of a decision on registration of the real estate and judgment was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.

The plaintiff and the trustee G., married on 10.04.1988, spouse G. he died on 12.11.2006. The goods regime between the spouses is in accordance with Article 225/last of the DEC.it ended on the date of his death. Since the spouses do not claim that they have chosen another property regime, from the date of marriage until 01.01.2002, when TMK 4721 entered into force, Article 170 of TKM 743. according to article 10 of the Law No. 4722 on the decoupling of property between spouses from 01.01.2002 until the date of the spouse’s death, the regime of separation of property between spouses. in accordance TMC 202. according to its article, the regime of participation in acquired goods applies. The subject of the lawsuit is G 26183 island 10 parcel 12 section, through sale on 06.04.2004. T. it has been determined in his name and was transferred on behalf of his heirs on 23.12.2006.

The case relates to the request that he will receive participation arising from residual value due to the liquidation of the death-related property regime. According to the scope of the file, the contents of the case documents and the trial minutes, the court has decided by evaluating the evidence and there is no wrongdoing in the event, in such cases, TMK 5. article 125 of the Code of Obligations No. 818. (TBK No. 6098.No. 146.m.) that the 10-year statute of limitations contained in the article is envisaged to be applied, the trustee G.220/2 of the 65,000 TL TMK inherited from his father. according to article 232 and 235/1 of the TMK, assets should be taken into account at the time of liquidation, according to the established practices of the Supreme Court, the date of liquidation is considered the date of decision, the court’s decision is considered to be the personal property of the trustee and is taken into account in the calculation made by the expert, according to articles 232 and 235/1 of the TMK, since it has been determined that the plaintiff will no longer receive participation on the value by deducting the value of the contribution made by the trustee with his personal property from the value of the real estate at the release date, the other appeals of the plaintiff’s attorney and the defendant’s attorney have not been considered in place.

The deputy plaintiff is the 240th Chairman of TMK. in accordance with article 151.641, when the legal interest to be processed from the date of the decision of TL 37 is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant party together with the legal interest to be processed by the plaintiff, the registration of the immovable property on behalf of the plaintiff was decided by the court by deducting from the plaintiff’s inheritance and participation receivables. As it can be seen, the registration of real estate by the court on behalf of the plaintiff is conditional on the payment of the specific value. The task of the court is to decisively resolve the dispute between the parties and resolve the disputes. However, the dispute between the parties has not been resolved with the decision made, and the decisiondecision of the claim being made is subject to the conditions. In such a situation, there will also be a pause in the execution of the sentence.

The differences between the rights arising from the right to participate and the right to decertification can be roughly listed as follows; 1-The right to participate is a relative right that is a personal right that it will receive.