It Was Stated By The Court That The Statements Of The Plaintiff Witnesses Were Statements Transferred From The Plaintiff And Could Not Be Based On The Verdict

14 Mar It Was Stated By The Court That The Statements Of The Plaintiff Witnesses Were Statements Transferred From The Plaintiff And Could Not Be Based On The Verdict

T.C. SUPREME

2.Legal Department
Mainly: 2015/16048
Verdict: 2016/12667
Decision Date: 29.06.2016

DIVORCE CASE – STATEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF WITNESSES ARE STATEMENTS TRANSFERRED FROM THE PLAINTIFF AND CANNOT BE BASED ON THE VERDICT – THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT PROVE THAT THE TRAPPINGS WERE CASHED BY THE DEFENDANT – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

Summary: The statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the ornaments were cashed and used in the construction business are statements transferred from the plaintiff and cannot be based on the verdict. The plaintiff could not prove that the female trappings were cashed by the defendant. In the face of this situation, the plaintiff’s request for trappings should have been rejected, while its acceptance was not correct and required to be overturned.

(4721 P. K. m. 166)

Case and decision: at the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the provision given by the Local Court, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the defendant in terms of determining the defect, compensation and trappings, the documents were read and discussed and considered necessary:

1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the reasons in accordance with the law, and in particular, there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, the appeals of the defendant, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are unwarranted.

2-the plaintiff claimed that the jewelry worn at the wedding was cashed by the defendant and used in his contracting business with his father, while the defendant argued that the plaintiff deposited it in a safe deposit box that the plaintiff opened on his behalf at the bank a few days after the wedding. After the marriage of the parties, the jewelry of the plaintiff was rented by the woman on 13.09.2007 and put in the bank, the safe was last visited by the plaintiff on 19.09.2008 and closed from the letter of the bank’s reply. The plaintiff’s witnesses ‘ statements that the trappings were cashed and used in construction work are statements transferred from the plaintiff and cannot be based on the verdict. The plaintiff could not prove that the female trappings were cashed by the defendant. In the face of this situation, the plaintiff’s request for trappings should have been rejected, while its written acceptance was not correct and required to be violated.

Conclusion: 2 above the appellant provision. for the reason that was shown in paragraphs, corruption, destruction outside the scope of Sections 1 above, subject to appeal. it was unanimously decided that it should be upheld for the reason shown in the bent, that the advance fee of the appeal should be returned to the deposit if requested, and that the way to correct the decision was open within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 29.06.2016