T.C. SUPREME COURT DECISION

14.law office
Base: 2015/16277
Decision: 2016/2733
Date of Decision: 03.03.2016

REQUEST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – THE NEED TO DETERMINE THE HEIRS AND SHARES OF THE HEIR – THE NEED TO VIOLATE THE PROVISION

SUMMARY: The case concerns the request to issue a certificate of inheritance. In a concrete case; according to the census records in a file, deceased…’s history behind the death and childless married the heiress as his wife …’i left, her husband passed away … in the history, according to General Directorate of population and Citizenship Affairs response dated … dead….being from the Dead…’s mom, dad and brother that had been found in the records, made the announcement in the Gazette in accordance TMC, witness statement …’s mom, dad and your brother is not stated that it is understood. In accordance with the legal regulations described above, the court must determine the heirs and inheritance shares of the deceased’s, taking into account the provision of the article of the Turkish Civil Code. It was not considered correct to establish a provision without taking into account the specified issues, therefore, the decision had to be overturned.

(743 Pp. K. m. 517)

Litigation: plaintiff’s attorney by 05.03.2015 given on the day of the hearing on the petition with a request for issuance of Certificate of the inheritance at the end; the acceptance of the case for examination by the plaintiff’s attorney requested blog yargitayca 20.10.2015 provision given time, but apparently decided upon the adoption of the petition of Appeal has been resolved by examining all the papers in the file and:

The case concerns the request to issue a certificate of inheritance.

Deputy plaintiff, his client decased… passed away without children on 21.04.1967, his wife … passed away without children on 13.04.1974, deceased’s  wife I.the brother of …(T.) that his client was his mother, so he requested that the certificate of inheritance be issued, which indicates the heirs of the deceased’s and their share of the inheritance.

The court accepted the share in the inheritance of deceased … and decided that his share belongs to the State, the remaining share belongs to the lower court of his dead brothers, provided that the rights holders of the share are reserved by the mother and father to file a rations lawsuit.

The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.

The inheritance and the passage of the inheritance are determined according to the legal situation in force on the date of the deceased’s death.

article 517 of the Civil Code of the Turkish Republic No. 743. in its article ”The inheritance will be opened with death”, 439. in Article 439/1, “Children who died before the inheritance will be replaced by their own descendants through all degrees of succession,” in Article 444/2, “If the surviving spouse is the heir along with the parent, father, or their uncle, the inheritor will have the right to usufruct 1/4 of the property along with half of the inheritance, and if they do not have the ownership of the entire inheritance,” in article 444/2, “ it has been explained.

In a concrete case; according to the census records in a file, deceased  …’s left behind his wife as heiress married and childless 21.04.1967 …click on the death, his wife passed away on 13.04.1974, according to General Directorate of population and Citizenship Affairs response dated 02.07.2015 dead….being from the Dead…’s mom, dad and brother that had been found in the records, TMC 594. according to the article, an announcement was made in the newspaper, and in the witness statements it was understood that the mother, father and brother of … were not mentioned. In accordance with the legal acts described above, the court has established Article 444 of the Civil Code of the Turkish Republic No. 743. taking into account the provision of the article, it is necessary to determine the heirs of the deceased and their share of inheritance. It was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing without taking into account the specified issues, therefore, the decision had to be overturned.

Conclusion: For the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 03.03.2016 that the provision would be OVERTURNED by accepting appeals, and the advance fee would be returned to the depositor upon request.