T.C.
SUPREME
19. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/11600
DECISION NO: 2018/441
DECISION DATE: 7.2.2018

>SIGNATURE OBJECTION-THE NEED FOR SIGNATURE SAMPLES TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE PARTIES AT THE HEARING–SIGNATURE SAMPLES TO BE MADE AFTER THE HEARING BY DECISIONREFERENCES

2004 / m.72

Summary Dec Dec.1 after hearing in the court dated 23.01.2014 with the presence of the attorneys of the parties, it was decided to take the signature samples in the presence of the plaintiff with the interim decision after the plaintiff had claimed that the signature on the bond subject to the lawsuit was not his signature. This was the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as it was against the procedure of the signature review. No decision can be made based on procedural inquiry. If the original bond is shown to him and asked whether the signature belongs to him and he does not accept it, samples of the signature applied to the medar and then other samples of the signature applied to the places shown by the parties shall be taken together with a graphological report.

Case: at the end of the trial of the case against the parties for the reasons stated in the decree, the file was examined and discussed and considered upon appeal by the deputies of the parties within the period of the sentence given for the acceptance of the case.:

DECISION

The attorney of the plaintiff claimed that the defendant initiated execution proceedings against the plaintiff specific to the bills of exchange, but the signature on the bond subject to follow-up did not belong to the plaintiff and sued to determine that the plaintiff was not indebted, and then declared that it was paid by the plaintiff under the fear of execution and turned into

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that the defendant sold animals to the plaintiff and that the deed subject to the suit was signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.

According to the evidence collected by the court, it was determined that the signature of the claimant in the bond subject to the case did not belong to the plaintiff,therefore the plaintiff had no responsibility for the bond, the case was turned into an investment case because of the collection made during the follow-up phase,besides the fact that the conditions of compensation demanded by the parties

Dec.Dec. 1 after a hearing in the court of 23.01.2014 in which the plaintiff claims that the signature of the keşideci on the bond subject to the lawsuit is not his own, it was decided to take the signature samples in the presence of the plaintiff with the interim decision, although the signature of the judge and the clerk in the This was the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as it was against the procedure of the signature review. No decision can be made based on procedural inquiry. If the original bond is shown to him and asked whether the signature belongs to him and he does not accept it, samples of the signature applied to the medar and then other samples of the signature applied to the places shown by the parties shall be taken together with a graphological report.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 07.02.2018 that there is no place for the trial of other appeals and appeals of the plaintiff to be examined for the reasons described above, and that the advance fee should be returned to the parties if requested.