AŞIKOĞLU LAW OFFİCE | The Third Person’s Detinue Claim
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
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-17945,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-5.4.7,vc_responsive

The Third Person’s Detinue Claim

The Third Person’s Detinue Claim

T.C. Supreme Court 8. Legal Department E: 2018/304, K: 2018/1828, K.T.: 08.03.2018

At the end of the trial between the parties and in the case described above, the court decided to accept the case, and after the decision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney, the Department reviewed the file and considered it necessary.


Plaintiff 3. the person explained that the goods belonging to him were confiscated, that the debtor had nothing to do with the embarrassed goods, that he started running a cafe in the same place after the debtor closed his business, and demanded that the decision be taken to remove the foreclosure on his client’s goods with the acceptance of the fortification case.

The defendant’s acting creditor argued that the case should be dismissed, stating that both the debtor and his wife were present in both foreclosures held in the same place.

Court, according to witness statements, the business address of the debtor in property foreclosures his own after 2 months of discharge from the plaintiff’s own workplace by bringing goods began its operations when a path is not with the plaintiff’s business cycle, where the relationship between the plaintiff and the debtor the defendant with the reason of not being able to identify the organic vineyard that is the case for the adoption of foreclosures on the removal of mahcuz was decided.

The defendant’s creditor has appealed the decision.

The case is the third person’s 96. et al. it relates to the claim of fortification based on its substances.

The lien subject to the lawsuit was made in the presence of the debtor at the address”…”. On the other hand, the payment order notice issued to the ‘…” address, which is the residence address of the debtor, is the plaintiff 3 as working together in the same place at the foreclosure address.it’s done to the person. In addition, the debtor and the debtor’s wife were present at the foreclosure dated 19.12.2014 held in the same place as the foreclosure subject to the lawsuit. Also, plaintiff 3. the person continued to use the title “…” used by the debtor. Accordingly, the presumption of ownership provided for in Article 97/a of the iik is in the interest of the debtor and therefore the creditor. Contrary to this legal presumption, plaintiff 3. it must be proved by the person with convincing and strong evidence.

Plaintiff 3. bills and witness statements on which the person is based, some of which bear dates after the birth of the debt and do not have distinctive features; they do not constitute strong evidence in fortification cases and are not sufficient to prove the opposite of the presumption of ownership.

In that case, it was not right for the court to establish a provision for the acceptance of the case on the grounds that it did not correspond to the occurrence and content of the file, rather than the rejection, taking into account these material and legal facts.

Conclusion: for the reasons described above, the defendant accepted the appeals of the creditor’s attorney, and the provision 366 and 428 of the Humk. in accordance with article 366/3 of the iik by the parties. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 08.02.2018 that a request for correction of a decision can be made within 10 days from the notification of the decision of the Supreme Court.

No Comments

Post A Comment