2. Legal Department

Base Number: 2020/1780

Decision Number: 2020/2680

“Case Law Text”

Court :Family Court
CASE type : it will take trappings

At the end of the reasoning of the case between the parties, the decision given by the Local Court, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman, the documents were read and discussed and considered in accordance with the Dec.:
The case is a case in which he will receive jewelry, and the plaintiff woman claimed that the jewelry subject to the lawsuit was taken away by the defendant, and the defendant husband argued that it was taken away by the woman. According to life experiments, it is common for such things to be on a woman or stored at home, stored. In other words, the abandonment of them to the possession and protection of the defendant is incompatible with the usual situation. On the other hand, jewelry is one of the types of items that can be easily stored, transported, taken away. For this reason, it is always possible for a woman who intends to leave the house to take them with her in advance, to hide them, as well as to take them on when she leaves the House. As a result, it is necessary to accept that under normal circumstances, jewelry items are on the woman. The burden of proof to the contrary lies with the plaintiff.
In a concrete case, the plaintiff has listened to a witness to prove his claim. Sevilay Gundogdu, one of the plaintiff’s witnesses, said that the defendant was a neighbor and personally told him that the defendant had taken the trappings from the plaintiff’s hands. Accordingly, the statements of the plaintiff’s witness are not based on what they have heard from the plaintiff, but on the statements of the defendant himself. In that case, the plaintiff proved that the woman’s claim, considering that the file requested in the scope of expert witness reports in terms of the existence and due consideration of the case should be decided upon the adoption of proven ornamental objects, while the deterioration of the unprecedented dismissal in writing mistaken assessment into the decision decision decision had to be made.
Conclusion: it was unanimously decided that the Appellate provision should be broken for the reason shown above, that the appellate advance fee should be returned to the Depositor upon request, and that the way to correct the decision should be clear within 15 days of the notification of this decision. 08.06.2020 (Mon.)