21 Mar Liability Arising From The Retention Of The Land Registry
T.C. SUPREME
20.Criminal Division
Principal: 2015/2549
Decision: 2016/7501
Decision Date: 27.06.2016
CASE FOR CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION-LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE RETENTION OF THE LAND REGISTRY – REGISTRATION ON BEHALF OF HEIRS IS BASED ON A COURT DECISION – THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRANSFER THE TITLE DEED BY OBTAINING A DOCUMENT STATING THAT HE IS THE DESIGNATED HEIR – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN
Summary: After the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the request for enforcement of the Will, which was combined with the file at hand. In the combined case, the plaintiff, based on the will, requested that the decision of the Court of First Instance be considered valid in terms of parcels 823 and 827, which were decided by the cadastral Court to determine and register in the names of the legal heirs of the heir. 823 and 827 parcels are determined and registered by the cadastral Court on behalf of the legal heirs who are obliged to fulfill the will, in other words, the registration on behalf of the heirs is based on the court decision, since the plaintiff is the designated heir, there is no possibility of transfer in the deed by obtaining a document stating that the plaintiff is the designated heir. In this case, the court should examine the merits of the work in this case, and in terms of the compensation case filed, a decision should be made in accordance with the result that will be formed by waiting for the outcome of this case, while the decision was made to reject the original and combined file case on illegal grounds was not considered correct and required to disrupt it.
(4721 P. K. m. 1007)
Case: after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in duration, to reject the hearing request from expense, the file was examined and considered necessary.:
Decision : plaintiff … attorney, plaintiff …is the heir of dip muris …because he is the sole heir of the plaintiff, said Muris … left half of the inheritance share to his wife … by a will arranged in the notary’s Office on 29.09.1955 days, 13400/6585600 shares of his wife … … in the real estate that received parcel numbers 823 and 827 at the end of the disclosure in his village …in accordance with the decisions of the magistrate’s Court … the main and … the Court of First Instance … the main … were corrected to register the title, … 2. Main file in the court of First Instance of the numbered … …’s, and based on the agreement between the plaintiff, the plaintiff in the name of the part to be upgraded with the registration of the title deed 50400/6585600 stock to be determined, it will change the deed in place of the hand of this request because of the lack in the case Titling on the date of notification of the decision of the court duly owners or heirs to the registration of unfounded and lack hukukca kesinlesme commentary by giving the dirty deed, in response to the loss suffered by the plaintiff, the fair value of the parts of the real estate subject to the lawsuit falling to the plaintiff’s share shall be paid to the plaintiff jointly and severally, along with the legal interest to be processed from the date of notification of the situation to them., because the defendant and other defendants, who caused the loss of the plaintiff until the date of the lawsuit due to the inability to perform the work and operations that should be performed, have saved the amounts falling on the plaintiff’s share and the benefit that the plaintiff will receive from the real estate and the profit that he is deprived of 1.000.00.- He asked that the TL be decided jointly and severally with the legal interest that will be processed from the date of notification of the situation to the defendants.
The defendant’s attorney argued that the case had nothing to do with the case, and that the decision to dismiss the case was based on animosity, statute of limitations, the time limit and the final provision.
… Estate agent, the defendant, the plaintiff, representative of the estate where the owner is located, the only heir and legitimate at first flowed in succession are to be with their mother Muris they are aware that the various covenants, the plaintiff claimed that because in this case the person who obtained the right to the significance of understanding the demands of the court and submit their consent in a written statement that the numbered file again, in the beginning … ’s 33600/6585600 via compulsory registration of the shares to be registered on behalf 84000/6585600 requests for upgrade and although you can open a case with, … In rectifying the original case, muris reported that they believed that the fact that he wanted his shares to remain in his possession, the portion that would be raised, in exchange for his shift and expenses was also an indicator of the plaintiff’s well-being.
The defendant … … the representative of terekesi … … was duly notified of the petition of the case, and no response was given.
By the court, the plaintiff’s case is accepted,the subject of the case is 246,955, 83.-On the decision that the damages of TL be awarded to the plaintiff with mutual and joint collection from the defendants and the representative of the Heritage Company … together with the legal interest from the date of the case, the provision was appealed by the attorney of the defendant and the representative of the heritage company … to the Supreme Court 8. 26/03/2013 date of the legal department and … was broken by the decision.
To comply with the provision in the decision summary; ”File scope and according to the evidence collected, the final demand, however, has not been applied in the court with the claim that the titling of the deed and without registration cancellation compensation will be based on a request is made for the prosecution to execute the final decision of the court due to failure twice the amount of times I have been asked, but is denied, whereupon the District Prosecutor’s office and the land registry Directorate of the Republic didn’t result from these institutions due to the negligence of their demands by explaining how he was born is in demand by explaining that the right to demand compensation from, by the court, the plaintiff has reclaimed his request as compensation and price in the reclamation petition,in which he has also invested his expenses dated 29.12.2011, and its value is 246.955, 83.- Taking into account the increase to TL, the provision was established in writing, the subject of the case … the village 823 parcel 544 and 827 parcel 551 parcel, while similarly on 19.3.1993 the provision was formed and registered in the title deed on behalf of many natural persons, in the owners … wife … ’33600/6585600 share is seen, born in 1323 between the daughter of a document file … …’s only daughter and heir was in the history of 9.11.1984 says that …’s where, … daughter, born in 1926 …’s death on 9 also the children of the plaintiff and his brother leaving 19.10.1993 it is understood as a beneficiary, the estate would have to have in case of need, with the help of the representatives of the estate that are represented in accordance with the procedure, and the decision of the magistrate’s court date … 17.5.1983 in the examination of the plaintiff by the defendants against up to 8 people, the opening of the will in the case of varicose veins of the court 2. Court of Cassation 2 of the rejected decision on the cancellation of the will in File 2.7.1981 of the Court of First Instance and decision 1981/302. According to this decision, it was decided that the registration was requested from the Land Registry, and the decision was made by the Land Registry that the revenge was made according to the inheritance certificate., By the plaintiff to the court of First Instance, … …’s 10.12.1985 against other heirs filed on the date of In …’s all that will eat the other half of the half of the property to his wife …but he doesn’t accept the will of his will, and the denial of the cause of cancellation after finalisation of the magistrate’s court by the plaintiff …. heirs to the inheritance of the document is made with mansup where rejected requests for tavzih decision, and the decision to 17.05.1983 on the date of the execution of the decision is given in the registration decision is made at a rate which is immovable because it cannot explain where the deed is unable to execute the decision of that …’s that bequeathed all his real estate’s is the only heir of my state, which devolved from the village … 31, 34, 62, 82, 101, 125, 126, 127, 137, 221, 236, 288, 495, 541, 542, 543, 546, 548, 549, 552, 615, 616, 695, 749, 759 No. 796 half by the will of parcels and the …’S travels, remaining half due to the capacity of the heir at 1/2 per cent of the share is owned by …’S stock that is supposed to be explained 3/4 of the way in the name where registration is desired by the court expert’s report about the name from the title of wiping 25 moving parts in line with the share of the share according to 120 192 … the girl …’na 12 of the decision on the registration of the shares of the other heirs, given the share, was finalized in 1989 by the Supreme Court with the approval of the plaintiff’s petition and file according to the scope of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 and the legal basis of the request …than 1007. to the article, and that the land registry liability for damages arising out of the provision of State laid out on the eclipse of the state “of the title deed arising from the responsibility of keeping” regarding strict liability/aggravated reasons/lens aggravated responsibility/liability in relation to the risk rules apply to this clear provision of the law that is the source of state responsibility to the officer on the eclipse of the title deed is the process in violation of the law would have the presence of a causal link between the harmful outcome, according to the evidence collected by the court documents on which the plaintiff is based, the plaintiff has the right to inherit the property, both through a Will and a certificate of inheritance, which is avenged by the plaintiff, according to the evidence collected by the plaintiff party, which is based on the case., mother’s representative on behalf of the estate of the other heirs consent to the court in the case if they understood on the basis of the decision of the court in case No. 823 (pre-544) and 827 (pre-551) or the provision of immovable properties where there is a description of parcel No., the plaintiff then filed a writ which resulted in favor of this parcel of whether there is or with, in this case, it is not possible to be responsible for the Land Registry, the prefect and the Public Prosecutor’s office for the failure to execute the court’s application in the title deed, which is not related to the parcels subject to the lawsuit, in the face of these explanations and the case determined by TMK 1007. according to the article …it is not right to be held liable for compensation, since it is not a decision taken alayhe … … there is no hit in holding terekesi liable, the court should decide to reject the plaintiff’s case with all, while it is not right to be decided to accept it in writing on the basis of similar decisions that do not correspond to the scope of the file.”
The court decision has been satisfied after the trial continues while the plaintiff, and … by the court of First Instance No. … …’s the subject matter of the case of immovable property immovable property outside of the decision on the implementation in terms of plots No. 823 and 827 if you are not able to be decided, fair price in relation to the reimbursement of the original file and this file is merged with its lawsuit after the rejection of the plaintiff’s attorney, it was decided to combined the case was appealed by the judgment.
According to the statement in the filing of the lawsuit, the lawsuit; cancellation of the title deed is not possible if the registration of the damages caused by the Civil Code 1007. according to the article, it is related to the request for compensation.
Court, Supreme Court 8. 26/03/2013 date of the legal department and … in accordance with the decision to disrupt the original file case was rejected, in terms of the combined file case, the plaintiff …requested enforcement, but the request in this direction cannot be made in the form of enforcement, and the decision to be made in this direction will not be able to be executed, although the court’s acceptance does not correspond to the content of the file.
The Supreme Court is 8. Although in the decision to overturn the legal department, it was stated that the plaintiff’s case should be decided to reject it outright, in accordance with the principle that each case is considered in its current form, in the case subject to the decision of the Supreme Court, the case will be dismissed in its current form, taking into account that there is no case filed by the plaintiff related to parcels 823 and 827 and concluded in favor or against it.
After the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the request for enforcement of the Will, which was combined with the file at hand. In the combined case, the plaintiff, based on the will, requested that the decision of the Court of First Instance be considered valid in terms of parcels 823 and 827, which were decided by the cadastral Court to determine and register in the names of the legal heirs of the heir. 823 and 827 parcels are determined and registered by the cadastral Court on behalf of the legal heirs who are obliged to fulfill the will, in other words, the registration on behalf of the heirs is based on the court decision, since the plaintiff is the designated heir, there is no possibility of transfer in the deed by obtaining a document stating that the plaintiff is the designated heir. So, the court will examine the merits of the work in this case, mk 1007. in terms of the compensation case filed in accordance with the article, a decision should be made in accordance with the result that will be formed by waiting for the outcome of this case, while the decision to reject the original and combined file case on illegal grounds was not considered correct and required to be overturned.
Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the decision was unanimously decided on 27.06.2016 to overturn the provision by accepting the appeals of the plaintiff … attorney and to return the appeal fee on request.
No Comments