It is Necessary To Determine The Heirs and Inheritance Shares of Deceased’s

11 Jun It is Necessary To Determine The Heirs and Inheritance Shares of Deceased’s

T.C. SUPREME

14.Legal Department
Mainly: 2015/16277
Decision: 2016/2733
Decision Date: 03.03.2016

REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE HEIRS AND SHARES OF THE INHERITANCE OF MURISIN – THE NEED TO VIOLATE THE PROVISION

Summary: the case relates to the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance. In a concrete case; according to the census records in a file, muris …’s history behind the death and childless married the heiress as his wife …’i left, her husband passed away … in the history, according to General Directorate of population and Citizenship Affairs response dated … dead….being from the Dead…’s mom, dad and brother that had been found in the records, made the announcement in the Gazette in accordance TMC, witness statement …’s mom, dad and your brother is not stated that it is understood. In accordance with the legal regulations described above, the court must determine the heirs and inheritance shares of murisin, taking into account the provision of the article of the civilisation of the Turkish law. It was not considered correct to establish a provision without taking into account the mentioned considerations, so the decision had to be broken.

(743 P. K. m. 517)

Litigation: plaintiff’s attorney by 05.03.2015 given on the day of the hearing on the petition with a request for issuance of Certificate of the inheritance at the end; the acceptance of the case for examination by the plaintiff’s attorney requested blog yargitayca 20.10.2015 provision given time, but apparently decided upon the adoption of the petition of Appeal has been resolved by examining all the papers in the file and:

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

Acting plaintiff, his client murisi … died childless on 21.04.1967, his wife … died childless on 13.04.1974, deceased’s wife I.’s brother …(t.) that his client was his mother, so he requested the issuance of a certificate of inheritance indicating their share of inheritance with the heirs of deceased’s.

By the court, deceased’s ’inheritance …was accepted as a share… and it was decided that his share belonged to the state, provided that the rights holders of the mother and father reserved the right to sue for fortification, and the remaining share belonged to the child of his dead brothers.

The plaintiff’s attorney appealed the ruling.

Inheritance and the passage of inheritance are determined by the legal situation in force on the date of deceased’s death.

Turkish Law No. 743 517. “the legacy will be opened by death”, 439. article 439/1 states that” children who died before the inheritance will be replaced by their own children through succession to all degrees, “and article 444/2 states that” if the surviving spouse is the heir of the heir with the mother, father or their mother, half of the inheritance will have the right to usufruct, and if they are not, half of the inheritance will have the right to usufruct, and if they are not, the entire inheritance will have the right to usufruct.”

In a concrete case; according to the census records in a file, muris …’s left behind his wife as heiress married and childless 21.04.1967 …click on the death, his wife passed away on 13.04.1974, according to General Directorate of population and Citizenship Affairs response dated 02.07.2015 dead….being from the Dead…’s mom, dad and brother that had been found in the records, TMC 594. according to the article, it was announced in the newspaper, and the witness statements stated that he did not have a mother, father and brother. In accordance with the legal regulations described above, the court ruled that the Turkish Law No. 743 was the Law No. 444. it is necessary to determine the heirs and inheritance shares of murisin, taking into account the provision of the article. It was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing without taking into account the mentioned considerations, so the decision had to be broken.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the decision was unanimously decided on 03.03.2016 to overturn the provision with the acceptance of the appeals and to return the advance fee to the Depositor upon request.