T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
16.law office

Base: 2015/5675
Decision: 2015/13516
Date of Decision: 17.11.2015

CASE OF CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS – THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED AND THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE – APPEALS ARE NOT IN PLACE – CONFIRMATION OF THE VERDICT

ABSTRACT: In the case concerning the cancellation and registration of the title deed, there was no inaccuracy in the contents of the file, the evidence on which the decision was based, the reasons for the necessity in accordance with the law, the discretion of the evidence. It has been decided to approve the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting appeals that are not in place.

(1136 P. K. m. 164)

Case and Decision: The decision made as a result of the case between the parties is requested to be examined by the Court of Cassation on a trial basis; N., who appealed on the day and time set for the hearing Dec. C.. etc. acting Lawyer A..O.. and C.. C.. an appeal is requested against by the Acting Treasury Lawyer M..with Sh.. C.. etc. the acting Lawyer is G..C.. D.. they arrived. A trial has been started against the faces of those who came. After the oral statements of the parties were heard, the hearing was reportedly over. During the period, the inspection report and the documents in the file were read. discussed as needed:

In summary, in the Supreme Court decision on annulment; “M., who left a common inheritance.. the plaintiffs’ immediate heirs with D.. C..indicates the current and final heirs obtaining a certificate of inheritance, ensuring the participation of all heirs in the case in accordance with the method or appointing a representative to the decency, listening to the witnesses of the parties to the real estate, what and to whom the real estate belonged before, who used it, who still owns and saves this place, which is the subject of dispute, determining who has the right to use it, eliminating the contradiction between the declarations, if any, Cadastral made the subject of litigation in the court, and alleged the same root birakand heritage to remain without 417, 467, 495 and 498 regarding the cadastre of immovable properties last deed No. minutes and parcel records, and brought to resolving the dispute consideration, the validity of the bonds and the rest of the Defendant dated sales 01.09.1960 11.09.1967 will focus on the control of land borders and boundaries that are suitable for properly applying to be the expert technical isaretletilm, it is necessary to discuss whether the respondent’s response to the lawsuit filed at the Cadastral Court on the immovable property subject to litigation is binding on them”. At the end of the trial conducted in accordance with the court’s decision to overturn, it was decided to dismiss the case; the decision was made jointly with the deputy plaintiffs Muris M.. C.. it has been appealed by the representative of tereke.

Result: the file is based on the content of the decision with the evidence gerektirici in accordance with the law for reasons of lack of evidence in place by the misses in the case of non-provision of Appeal for the rejection of the appeal procedures and approved in accordance with the law, the Supreme Court set a hearing for 1.100,00 TL retainer appeals taken from the plaintiff, who, himself at the trial, represented by the proxy to be owned by the situations in which appeals against the decision of the appeal receiving the tuition fees received in advance whether 17.11.2015 on the day it was decided unanimously.