Supreme Court Decision On Registration Request Based On Promise Of Sale Contract

06 Mar Supreme Court Decision On Registration Request Based On Promise Of Sale Contract

Posted at 01:52h in General by Aşıkoğlu Law Office 0 Comments

0 Likes

T.C. SUPREME

14.Legal Department
Basis: 2008/237
Decision: 2008/976
Decision Date: 04.02.2008

REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION BASED ON THE PROMISE OF SALE AGREEMENT – THE VALIDITY OF THE WAIVER DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE CONSENT OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY – THE NEED FOR THE DECISION TO BE BROKEN FOR A DECISION BY THE COURT ON THE WAIVER OF THE PARTIES ‘ CASES

Summary: the validity of the waiver does not depend on the consent of the other party. It breeds its effect through the one-way will Statement of the person who made it. For this reason, the decision of the Local Court must be violated in order to make a decision by the court on the waiver of the parties ‘ cases.

(1086 P. K. m. 91, 95) (YIBK. T. 11.04.1940 1939/15 E. 1940/70 K.)

Case: registration based on the sales PROMISE agreement with the petition given by the attorney of the plaintiffs against the defendant on 01.08.2003, at the end of the hearing on the request for cancellation of the sales PROMISE agreement with the petition given by Tahir Dundar against Hussein Karasu and Nurhan Karasu on 17.08.2003; after the decision was made on the acceptance of the registration request and the rejection of the case for cancellation of the contract by the Supreme Court of Appeal, which is understood to be in the period of request by the defendant/counter-plaintiff’s attorney, the file and all the papers in it were examined and considered necessary:

Decision: the plaintiffs requested that the registration of the independent departments they purchased from the defendant on the basis of the sales PROMISE agreement dated August 3, 1993 and 13019, made in the form of an arrangement be decided on the cancellation of the contract and the rejection of the plaintiffs ‘ case, informing them that the sales PROMISE agreement based on the counter-claim filed by the defendant Tahir Dundar was established in consultation, the court decided to cancel the title deed on behalf of the defendant/Counter-Plaintiff for the land share determined for the independent Section 5 of the real estate located in 463 island 21 parcels and to register it on behalf of the plaintiff/counter-defendants and to reject the counter-case.

The defendant / counter plaintiff Tahir Dundar’s attorney appealed for the parties to mutually waive their case after the verdict, and also for the decision to overturn the court’s decision because the provision for the denial of the case against the plaintiffs was against the procedure and the law, since the contract for the promise of sale was canceled.

1-according to the evidence collected in the trial and the content of all files, other appeals of the defendant/Counter-Plaintiff were required to be rejected in place.

2-in the examination of the file, it was found that the parties waived their cases with their petitions dated 10.09.2007, which confirmed the identity they had given separately before the file was sent to the Supreme Court for appeal review after the verdict was given by the court.

HUMK. nun 91. in the article, it is stated that the waiver is the refusal of one of the two parties to request a continuation, 95/1. in the article, it is also related to the provision that the waiver will have the legal consequences of a strict provision. Again, it should be noted that the validity of the waiver does not depend on the consent of the other party. It breeds its effect through the one-way will Statement of the person who made it. For this reason, the decision of the Local Court must be violated in order to make a decision by the court on the waiver of the parties ‘ cases. The Supreme Court’s established practices are also on this path. (11.04.1940 day and 70 numbered Supreme Court case law decision, 16.11.1966 day 1438/290 and 27.05.1992 day 1992/2-250/364 numbered decisions of the General Assembly of law)

Conclusion: for the reasons described in Paragraph 1 Above, It was unanimously decided on 04.02.2008 to reject the other appeals of the defendant/counter-plaintiff’s attorney, to overturn the provision in accordance with paragraph 2, to return the appeal fee to the Depositor upon request.