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

Base: 2015/14445
Decision: 2016/2648
Date of Decision: 02.03.2016

REQUEST TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – THE PLAINTIFF IS ASKED TO DETERMINE ALL HIS EVIDENCE, INCLUDING A WITNESS, TO PROVE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MURISLE AND THE PLAINTIFF – INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION AND REJECTION OF THE CASE IS INCORRECT -DEC PROVISION IS BROKEN

SUMMARY: The case concerns the request to issue a certificate of inheritance. The state of inheritance is investigated by the court personally and can be proved by any evidence. In that case, the court, the plaintiff asked for the side of the evidence, including witnesses to prove the link between Muris it should be determined whether, in a case like this ex-officio research for the determination of the heirs of Muris are subject to the principle of considering that, if necessary, after determining duraksamasiz the police investigation was conducted, a certificate of inheritance in accordance with the provisions at the date of death should be given.

(4721 Pp. K. m. 30, 575)

Litigation: Plaintiff, by 25.06.2015 given on the day the petition made available upon request with Certificate of inheritance at the end of the trial; examination of the case by the plaintiff’s attorney requested blog yargitayca 07.07.2015 provision given for the rejection, but in time, apparently decided upon the adoption of the petition of Appeal has been resolved by examining all the papers in the file and:

Verdict: The case concerns the request to issue a certificate of inheritance.

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiff is not the legal heir in the murisin population register.

The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.

575 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. according to article 30 of the same law as inheritance is opened by death. according to the article, birth and death can be proved by records in the population register, if there are no records in the population registers or if it is understood that the found record is not correct, it is possible to prove the real situation with all kinds of evidence.

As for the concrete case; it is understood that the mother’s name is … in the plaintiff’s population record, but there is no record or explanation of the said …. There has been no determination that the person requested for probate and the plaintiff’s mother are the same person.

In accordance with the principles described above, the case of inheritance is investigated by the court personally and can be proved by any evidence. In that case, the court, the plaintiff asked for the side of the evidence, including witnesses to prove the link between Muris it should be determined whether, in a case like this ex-officio research for the determination of the heirs of Muris are subject to the principle of considering that, if necessary, after determining duraksamasiz the police investigation was conducted, a certificate of inheritance in accordance with the provisions at the date of death should be given.

It was not considered correct for the court to decide to dismiss the case by incomplete examination without taking into account the above-mentioned issues, and therefore the decision had to be overturned.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 02.03.2016 that the provision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons written above, and the fee deposited in advance should be returned to the depositor upon request.