01 May Possessory Actions
Supreme Court Of The Republic Of Turkey 4.Legal Department Basis: 2019 / 11656 Decision: 2020 / 2597 Decision Date: 18.02.2020
Abstract: if it is understood that the date of disposal to be determined is between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983, if it is understood that the date of disposal is after 04.11.1983, it is not thought that the relative proxy fee and the relative fee should be decided, it was not considered correct.
(1086 P. K. m. 428)
At the end of the trial due to the case of collecting the value of real estate confiscated without expropriation between the parties: the Supreme Court examined the written provision of the above days and numbers given for the acceptance of the case, being requested by the petitions issued by the deputies of the parties, the documents in the file were read and considered necessary after the dispute was understood:
DECISION
The case relates to the request for collection of the value of real estate confiscated without expropriation.
The court established a decision by examining and taking action in accordance with the decision to overturn it; the decision was appealed by the deputies of the parties.
Although the injunction has been complied with by the court, the injunction requirements have not been fully fulfilled. That is to say;
1) Court 11.01.2017 dated interim decision of the legal decidedly removed part of the real estate subject to the case
445,63 square meters as a de facto road, given that it was detailed from the file at hand
although the price of the confiscated section should be decided, it also covers the parts that are detailed and exceeds the demand,
2) according to The Decision No. 6100 of HMK No. 177 and the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation Case Law No. 06/05/2016 day and 2015/1 basis – 2016/1 decision no., it is not possible to increase the result of the request by reclamation after the violation. Surplus rights must be requested by additional litigation.
In this respect, the lawsuit is requested by the petition
a decision should be made in writing, while a decision should be made on the cost of throwing hands without nationalization,
3) do not think that the takyidat on the property subject to the lawsuit should be reflected in the price,
4) on what date the subject of the lawsuit is actually not moved
if it is understood that the date of throwing hands to be determined is between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983, the victim should not be considered that the date of throwing hands is after 04.11.1983, if it is understood that the date of throwing hands is after 04.11.1983, the relative fee of power of attorney and the relative fee should be ruled,
It’s not seen right.
Because the appeals of the party’s deputies are in place, the provision is explained by H.U.M.K.nun 428. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 18.02.2020 that the appeal fees received in advance from the parties should be returned when requested, and that the appeal fees should be registered with the Treasury. (¤¤)
No Comments