T.C.
SUPREME COURT
19. law office
MAINLY NO: 2016/11600
DECISION NO: 2018/441
DATE OF DECISION: 7.2.2018

>SIGNATURE OBJECTION – SIGNATURE SAMPLES MUST BE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE PARTIES AT THE HEARING – SIGNATURE SAMPLES MUST BE MADE AFTER THE HEARING BY Decider

2004/m.72

SUMMARY : the plaintiff’s case-subject to the signature of the drawer is not to claim that his own bills dated 23.01.2014 acting as a party in the hearing after the trial the plaintiff No. 1 with the presence of the decision of Dec, it was decided that samples would be taken in the presence of the signature, then the signature received an example of the signature of the judge and the clerk in the report, although there are in this trial is not done in the presence of the parties, the hearing decision was made after Dec. This situation has been the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as it is contrary to the signature review procedure. A decision based on a procedural investigation cannot be made. If the plaintiff does not agree to be shown the original of the bond in question in front of the parties who are ready and asked if the signature belongs to him, samples of the signature applied to the media are taken before him and then a graphological report is taken along with other samples of the signature applied to the media brought from the places shown by the parties.

CASE: At the end of the trial of the vile determination-istirdat case between the parties, the file was examined after the decision to accept the case for written reasons was appealed by the attorneys of the parties within the period of time, and the file was Dec and considered as necessary:

decision

The deputy plaintiff requested and sued to determine that the plaintiff was not in debt, claiming that the defendant initiated enforcement proceedings specific to the exchange notes against the plaintiff, but the signature on the bond subject to prosecution did not belong to the plaintiff, and then declared that it had been paid by the plaintiff under fear of execution, declaring that it had turned into a lawsuit.

The defendant’s deputy asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the defendant had sold animals to the plaintiff, and therefore the deed subject to the case was signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.

According to the evidence collected by the court; it was determined that the kashideci signature contained in the bond subject to the case does not belong to the plaintiff, so the plaintiff has no responsibility for the bond, the case turned into an istirdat case due to the collection being made at the follow-up stage, as well as the terms of compensation requested by the parties from each other were not formed upon acceptance of the case, 43.000,00 TL was collected from the defendant along with commercial interest from the date of payment, the parties’ compensation it was decided to reject their request, and the decision was appealed by the party’s deputies.

Subject to the plaintiff’s case-bills dated 23.01.2014 to claim that the signature of the drawer is not his own, acting as a party in the hearing after the trial the plaintiff No. 1 with the presence of the decision of Dec, it was decided that samples would be taken in the presence of the signature, then the signature received an example of the signature of the judge and the clerk in the report, although there are in this trial is not done in the presence of the parties, the hearing decision was made after Dec. This situation has been the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as it is contrary to the signature review procedure. A decision based on a procedural investigation cannot be made. If the plaintiff does not agree to be shown the original of the bond in question in front of the parties who are ready and asked if the signature belongs to him, samples of the signature applied to the media are taken before him and then a graphological report is taken along with other samples of the signature applied to the media brought from the places shown by the parties.

CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 07.02.2018 that the provision should be OVERTURNED for the defendant’s benefit, that there is no room for examining the defendant’s other appeals and the plaintiff’s appeals for the time being, if advance payment is requested, it should be returned to the parties, according to the reason of the violation.

You can acces our other articles from clicking here