T.C. SUPREME
\n13. Legal Department<\/p>\n
Principal No: 2014\/19529<\/p>\n
Decision No: 2014\/20906<\/p>\n
Decision Date: 24.06.2014<\/p>\n
SUPREME COURT DECISION
\nCourt: \u015eerefliko\u00e7hisar 1. The Court Of First Instance
\nDate: 29\/01\/2013
\nNumber: 2011\/180-2013\/76<\/p>\n
At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, for reasons written in the decree
\nthe defendants within the term of the sentence given for the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case
\nupon appeal by his lawyer, the case was reviewed and considered.
\nDECISION
\nPlaintiff, defendant Y.. A..the other defendant, who is ‘ s daughter, N.. A..’I, Son of M. He. to marry the defendant
\nthe father received \u00a3 6,000,00 in security money, \u00a3 6,000, 00 in gold and \u00a3 3,500,00 in clothing
\nthat he was taken and delivered, defendant N. that he and his son were married, but the defendant, Y.. A..’s official wedding
\nkiydirmad if his divorced wife alimony when they want a formal wedding girls has been received from the daughter of the defendant and
\nhe said the defendants had wrongfully inflicted \u00a3 15,500. 00 in damages on him.
\ndecision to collect \u00a3 15,500 from defendants and charge court costs to defendants
\nshe demanded and sued him.<\/p>\n
The defendants have pleaded guilty.
\nThe court granted the partial acceptance of the case to the plaintiff by taking \u00a3 5,000 from the defendants,
\nthe request for the surplus was refused; the verdict was appealed by the defendants.
\nIn addition to the other demands of the claimant, the other claimant Nurg\u00fcl, who is the daughter of the defendant Ya\u015far, and his own son
\nin order to get married, the defendant claims to have given \u00a3 5.000,00 guarantee money (title money) to Ya\u015far,
\nhe requested a refund of this price. The court said, ” … of the plaintiff’s son and of the defendants N.. A..’s getting married
\nin order to live together without formal marriage, the parties began to live together
\nclothing and trappings to the defendant by the plaintiff as a wedding gift before their lives
\nit is understood that the jewelry and gold taken as a wedding gift belonged to the woman.
\nit has been decided to reject the request for their compensation. Although the plaintiff party defendants 6,000
\nAlthough he stated that he had given TL security money, there was no written document indicating that he had given \u00a3 6,000 money.
\nas such, the defendants admitted to having been given \u00a3 5,000 of the money, while the witnesses agreed that \u00a3 5,000 of the money was paid to the plaintiff
\na \u00a3 5,000 guarantee to the defendants by the claimant considering that they have declared that they have been given by
\nit has been accepted that he was paid. From the scope of the file by the plaintiff
\nit was understood that the money given to the defendants was given as the guarantee money title Money. Witnesses also say 5,000
\nThey stated that the TL was given by the plaintiff to the defendant Ya\u015far as a guarantee money. Defendants also
\nThey accepted that \u00a3 5,000 of assurance money had been given by the claimant. The person as a rule
\nfreedom of conduct is limited by the law and the general code of ethics. Unlawful freedom of contract
\nthe sanction of being surpassed or affected as BK.nun 19 and 20. shown in articles and such
\na donation is deemed null and void. The marriage of one to whom one wishes, provided for by law
\nit is a requirement of fundamental rights and freedoms within borders. The fact that the girl’s father agreed to marry her
\nthe money received under the title of the guarantee money, the goods or money received under the title, is unlawful within these measures.
\nsince it will fall, the commitments and commitments that provide it must also be considered null and void. Reassurance for these reasons
\nthe decision was made to return the \u00a3 5,000 received as money to the claimant…”
\nto the rejection of the claimant’s other demands but to the guarantee price for the purpose of securing the said marriage
\nit was decided to demand acceptance. Common and free wills of the parties to marriage
\nshould be made within the framework of defined principles that has been arranged. Civil Code and other laws
\na claim that a price may be requested under the name of the guarantee money (title money) for the purpose of securing the marriage.
\nthere is no regulation. The money paid under this name is contrary to general morality and public order
\nit is evident that it is. Missing debt in money paid in contravention of general morality and public order
\nit is qualified and cannot be claimed through litigation. In this case, the court shall, on the grounds stated in the case,
\nthe decision in writing, without regard to this matter, should be completely rejected.
\nit is against the law and procedure to be given, and it requires corruption.
\nConclusion: in advance, for the benefit of the defendants of the decision appealed for the reason described above,
\non the day of 24.6.2014, it was unanimously decided to return the fee of 85.40 TL on request.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. SUPREME 13. Legal Department Principal No: 2014\/19529 Decision No: 2014\/20906 Decision Date: 24.06.2014 SUPREME COURT DECISION Court: \u015eerefliko\u00e7hisar 1. The Court Of First Instance Date: 29\/01\/2013 Number: 2011\/180-2013\/76 At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, for reasons written…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,302,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n