In a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals 14th Civil Department, it has determined below about the statute of limitation in the sale promise contracts.

Since no special limitation period is envisaged for the lawsuits arising from the contract for sale of immovable property, a ten-year limitation period shall be applied pursuant to the provisions of Article 125 of the Code of Obligations and this period shall commence upon the possibility of performance of the contract. However, in cases opened after the ten years limitation period, if the promised real estate is delivered to the person who accepts the promised real estate, or the person who accepts the promise of sale, in the cases opened after the ten years limitation period, the rest of the Turkish Civil Code will not be compatible with the rules of honest behavior.

14. THE CIVIL DEPARTMENT 2016/3789 E., 2016/9049 K.

COURT: Court of First Instance

At the end of the reasoning made by the attorney of the plaintiff, upon the annulment of the title deed with the petition given on 28.12.2012 against the defendants and the request for compensation in the second stage of the registration; the case against the rejection of the case on 07.10.2015, the Supreme Court of Appeals, the request of the plaintiff to be examined by the plaintiff, the appointed on 01.11.2016 on the notice of the court of appeal against the defendant with the defendant X deputy lawyer Y came. No one came. Open trial started. The verdict was heard after the verdict was approved and the verbal statements were heard. It’s been decided. Then the file and all the papers were examined and considered necessary:
DECISION
The case concerns the cancellation of the deed and registration on the basis of the sale promise contract, and the request for compensation if it is not.
The plaintiff has promised the sale of all of the registered share in the parcel no. 23 parcel number with the promised sales contract on 29.11.1993, that the sale price is promised in cash, and then the share of the defendant as a result of the zoning application, 79057 share is registered in the name of the defendant, the defendant Z heirs on 29/11/2012 sold the immovable A, the buyer did not have good intentions, 132 island, 1 parcel no real estate with 145 Island, 1 parcel No. 800/79057 share of the title deed registration In the event that it is not possible to decide to register in the name of the cancellation, it has demanded and demanded the decision to collect the compensation amounting to 750.000,00 TL from the inheritors as of the date of sale.
A number of defendants’ deputies have challenged the statute of limitation and authority and advocated the denial of the case.
The defendant defendant Z defended the decision to dismiss the case against his client, who had acquired the immovable property in good faith.
The court decided to reject the case due to the statute of limitations.
The judge appealed the plaintiff.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 213 of the Law of Obligations and Article 89 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 89 of the Notary Law, the contracts for the promise of real estate, whose source is derived from Article 22 of the Code of Obligations it is the type of contract that installs debt to both sides and provides personal rights. Promissory creditor can demand the realization of the deed in the case of cancellation of the deed and registration in the case of the opener in accordance with Article 716 of the Turkish Civil Code when the promise of real estate is not fulfilled.
Since no special limitation period is envisaged for the lawsuits arising from the contract for sale of immovable property, a ten-year limitation period shall be applied pursuant to the provisions of Article 125 of the Code of Obligations, and this period shall commence upon the possibility of performance of the contract. However, in cases opened after the ten years limitation period has expired, the promised real estate is delivered to the person who accepts the promise of sale or the person who accepts the promise of sale.
In the concrete case; It is claimed by the plaintiff that the parcel no. 23 parcel no. As a result of the discovery made by the court, it was stated in the report dated 02.02.2015 prepared by the experts that the records related to the zoning application were not included in the case file and it could not be checked whether the two parcels were composed of the parcel no. In addition, in the cases related to the same property of the immovable, the witnesses should be heard at the reconnaissance site and the appropriate location should be obtained by checking the locations on the map.
It is necessary to bring the documents related to the zoning application by asking the municipality and the land registry in which the parcel no. If it is understood that the parcel no. 23 parcel number of which is subject to the sale promise contract is going to 132 parcel 1 and 145 parcel 1, it is decided to make a decision according to the results of the witnessing of the witnesses at the discovery area and the decision of the witnesses who are heard at the hearing. while it was not necessary to establish a written judgment in the form of a missing review, the decision had to be corrupted due to these reasons.
CONCLUSION: For the reason explained above, with the adoption of the appeal objections of the plaintiff’s representative, the settlement of the provision shall be returned to the investor upon request,
It was decided unanimously on 01.11.2016.