T.C. SUPREME
- LD 2011/3430 E. 2011/6636 K. 18.4.2011 T.
In the petition of the lawsuit, 2500 pounds of compensation was requested to be collected from the defendant along with interest and expenses. The court dismissed the case, and the sentence was appealed by the acting plaintiff. After it became clear that the appeal request was within the period, all the papers in the file were read and considered necessary. The case relates to the defendants ‘ claim for damages due to the fact that their child started the fire. From the statements in the petition, it is understood that the defendants ‘ responsibility as the head of the family is asked. The legal basis for the responsibility of the head of the family is Mk 369. the item is in. No. 4 of the establishment of Family Courts Act No. 4787. Article 2 of the CC. it is stated that the cases and cases arising from his book will be settled in the Family Court. MK’s 369. such a case must be examined and concluded in the Family Court. The fact that the merits of the work were examined by the court without regard to the direction of duty is the reason for the violation. In this respect, the provision in writing without regard to the principles described above is not accurate, since appeals are in place for these reasons, with the acceptance of the provision Humk 428.in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 18.04.2011 to overturn and return the appeal fee received in advance to the appellant upon request.