THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION ON THE CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES. - AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE
Aşıkoğlu started his position as the Alanya Public Prosecutor in 2009 and continued until 2013 when he quit his position to initiate his career as an attorney at law.
alanya,hukuk,bürosu,avukat,dava,danışma,mehmet,aşıkoğlu,mehmet aşıkoğlu,savcı,eski,ceza,ticaret,haciz,alacak,borçlar,Mehemet,Aşıkoğlu,alanya,avukat,hukuk,bürosu,alanya avukat, mehmet aşıkoğlu, alanya hukuk bürosu,Kerim Uysal,Kerem Yağdır,ahmet sezer, mustafa demir, hüsnü sert, jale karakaya, murat aydemir, ayşegül yanmaz
21073
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-21073,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,side_area_uncovered_from_content,qode-theme-ver-14.2,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-6.13.0,vc_responsive
 

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION ON THE CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES.

21 Apr THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION ON THE CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES.

Posted at 21:55h in General, INFORMATION by
0 Likes

T.C. SUPREME COURT

1.law office

 

Base: 2014/11142

Decision: 2016/7262

Date of Decision: 14.06.2016

land registry

CASE OF CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS – DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SHARED OWNERSHIP WILL BE APPLIED IN DISPUTES BETWEEN HEIRS AND EACH OTHER AND THAT THEY CAN BE SUED WITH A REQUEST AT THE RATE OF SHARES – THE DECISIVENESS OF ESTABLISHING A PROVISION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE WORK – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN

 

ABSTRACT: The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case filed with the cancellation-registration request cannot be heard at the rate of a share in terms of the legal reason for the “driver’s license”, which should be examined first of all from the requests put forward. However, since the provisions of shared ownership provided for in articles 688 of law No. 4721 and the dec articles will be applied in disputes between heirs, it is possible that lawsuits can be filed with a request at the share ratio. Instead of studying the merits of the work and making a decision based on its conclusion, it is not right to make a provision in writing.

 

(6098 P. K. m. 19, 36) (4721 pp. K. m. 688)

 

Tuesday, Dec. 14.06.2016, which is determined as the day of the hearing, the appellants are the deputy Lawyer … and the deputy Lawyer who is being appealed upon the notification made for Tuesday, 14.06.2016, although the decision made by the local court regarding the rejection of the case has been appealed by the plaintiffs within the legal period On the contrary, the report prepared by the Examining Magistrate was read, and his opinion was taken. The case was reviewed and discussed as necessary:

 

The case is related to the request for cancellation of the title deed-registration at the rate of shares filed on the basis of the legal reasons of ”legal incompetence“, ”cheating“ and ”muris muvazaası”.

 

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case filed with the cancellation-registration request at the rate of a share in terms of the legal reason for the “driver’s license”, which should be examined first of all from the requests put forward, cannot be heard.

 

However, since the provisions of shared ownership provided for in Articles 688 and dec of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 will be applied in disputes between heirs, it is possible that lawsuits can be filed with a request at the share ratio.

 

In the concrete case, both the plaintiffs and the defendant are the heirs of muris.

 

As such, it is not right to make a provision in writing instead of examining the merits of the work and making a decision according to the result.

 

The plaintiffs’ appeal is in its place for the reason described. With its adoption, the provision (provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100.article 1086 HUMK.428 of the.1.350.00 for the deputy appellants arriving in accordance with the Attorney’s Fee Tariff, which entered into force on 21.12.2015, to be overturned in accordance with the article 1.350.00.TL. it was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 that the power of attorney fee for the hearing should be taken away from the appellant and the down payment should be returned to the appellant. (¤¤)

 

Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program

 

You can read other articles and petition examples by clicking here.

Tags:
, , , , ,
No Comments

Post A Comment

GermanTurkeyRussiaFinlandIran