AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE | Decision On The Request For The Issuance Of a Certificate Of Inheritance
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
17891
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17891,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive
 

Decision On The Request For The Issuance Of a Certificate Of Inheritance

Decision On The Request For The Issuance Of a Certificate Of Inheritance

T.C. SUPREME
14.Legal Department

Basis: 2015/14445
Decision: 2016/2648
Decision Date: 02.03.2016

REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – THE PLAINTIFF IS ASKED AND DETERMINED ALL HIS EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE WITNESS, TO PROVE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MURISLE – INCOMPLETE EXAMINATION AND REJECTION OF THE CASE IS NOT A HIT-THE PROVISION IS BROKEN

Summary: the case relates to the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance. The inheritance status is investigated by the court and can be proven by all kinds of evidence. In that case, the court should ask and determine all the evidence, including the witness, to prove the connection between Muris and the plaintiff, and if necessary, to determine the heirs of Muris, taking into account that such cases are subject to the principle of resen research, a certificate of inheritance should be provided in accordance with the provisions on the date of death, after it has been determined without hesitation by conducting a police investigation.

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

Case: at the end of the hearing held by the plaintiff on the request of the certificate of inheritance with the petition given on 25.06.2015; the decision of the Supreme Court on the rejection of the case 07.07.2015 day was made by the attorney of the plaintiff after the decision to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in the period of request, the file and all the papers in it were considered necessary:

Decision: the case relates to the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance.

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

The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the ruling.

575 Of The Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. according to Article 30 of the same law, as inheritance opens with death. according to the article, birth and death can be proved by records in the population register, if there is no record in the population registers or if it is understood that the record found is not true, the actual situation can be proved by all kinds of evidence.

As for the specific incident, it is understood that the name of the mother is in the plaintiff’s population record, but there are no records or descriptions of the Named Person. No determination has been made that the person requested for the succession declaration and the mother of the plaintiff are the same person.

In accordance with the principles described above, the status of inheritance is investigated by the court and can be proven by any evidence. In that case, the court should ask and determine all the evidence, including the witness, to prove the connection between Muris and the plaintiff, and if necessary, to determine the heirs of Muris, taking into account that such cases are subject to the principle of resen research, a certificate of inheritance should be provided in accordance with the provisions on the date of death, after it has been determined without hesitation by conducting a police investigation.

It was not considered correct for the court to decide to dismiss the case with incomplete examination without regard to the above-mentioned considerations, so the provision had to be broken.

Conclusion: a unanimous decision was made on 02.03.2016 to overturn the provision for the reasons written above and to return the advance deposit to the Depositor upon request.

No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran