T.O
\nSUPREME
\n1. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
\nPRINCIPAL NO: 2015\/9380
\nDECISION NO: 2018\/8897
\nDECISION DATE: 09.04.2018
\nCOURT :COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
\nTYPE OF CASE: DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION<\/p>\n
> > FORGERY TITLE DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION BASED ON LEGAL REASON – IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT SOMEONE WHO IS CONTRACTING DOES NOT KNOW THE PRICES OF REAL ESTATE AND 3. HE CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE GOODWILL IN HIS PERSON POSITION.<\/p>\n
At the end of the deed cancellation and registration case between the parties, the decision given by the Local Court regarding the rejection of the case was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney within the legal period and the file was examined, the examination Judge’s report was read, his comments
\nrested, reasoned and considered;<\/p>\n
DECISION<\/p>\n
The case is related to the cancellation of the title deed and registration request based on the legal reason of forgery.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff is the owner of kayden 1109 parcels (new 33 parcels) for the sale of the real estate outside the case …with a false signature … 10.The notary public issued 28.01.2005 date and 2657 days numbered power of attorney, the signature was thrown out of the consent and knowledge, the real estate subject to litigation as a proxy … by the defendant in 02.02.2005…, from him to the other defendant …by selling on 15.03.2005 by claiming that, cancellation of the registration of the title deed in his name to be decided.<\/p>\n
The defendant … pleaded guilty to dismissal by stating that he was the third person of good faith who purchased the property.<\/p>\n
The defendant … did not respond to the case and did not attend the hearings.<\/p>\n
By the court, the defendant …\u2019s bona fide 3.it has been decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that he is a person, and to dismiss the case on the grounds that there is no passive animosity with respect to the other defendant.<\/p>\n
The contents of the file, the evidence collected; while the subject of dispute belongs to the plaintiff on 28.01.2005 and 2657 days out of the case …\u2019with the capacity of acting attorney of the plaintiff … by the plaintiff on 02.02.2005 transfer of the real estate to the defendant …\u2019by sale on 15.03.2005 by showing the price of 8.000 TL, … institution of the Department of Physics specialized on 16.12.2005 report on 28.01.2005 contains the sales authority on behalf of the plaintiff
\nit is understood that the signature on the power of attorney was not the product of the claimant’s hand. There is no hesitation when the sale of a false power of attorney …to the defendant is invalid. Bona fides of the other defendant … who acquired the property from the defendant …
\nin case TMK 1023. there is no doubt that he will benefit from the Protectorate of his substance.<\/p>\n
The defendant … in his reply petition dated 23.06.2005, he argued that he was a contractor and purchased the real estate in question for \u00a3 100,000.00 through a real estate agent. The sale price shown in the official contract is 8.000 TL, the sale of the property by the expert and
\nthe value determined at the dates of the case is TL 348.000.00.<\/p>\n
Although the defendant … argued that he paid his dealer \u00a3 100,000,00, he could not properly prove his defence, even if he did, against the court’s declaration that he paid a price of 3\/1 of the price determined by the court.
\nit’s unacceptable that he’s behaving like a prudent merchant. In other words, a contractor does not know the prices of real estate can not be said. In this case, the real estate of 348.000. 00 TL is good against 8,000 TL, so TMK’s
\n1023.it is unacceptable that he would benefit from the Protectorate of his substance.<\/p>\n
In this case, it is not right that the verdict should have been established as written by misleading evaluation when the case should have been decided to accept.<\/p>\n
With the acceptance of the appellate Appeals found in the plaintiff’s place, the provision (provisional 3 of Law No. 6100.by sending article) 428 of Humk No. 1086.it was decided unanimously on 09.04.2018 that the amount of cash received should be annulled in accordance with the article and returned to the appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.O SUPREME 1. LEGAL DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL NO: 2015\/9380 DECISION NO: 2018\/8897 DECISION DATE: 09.04.2018 COURT :COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE TYPE OF CASE: DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION > > FORGERY TITLE DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION BASED ON LEGAL REASON – IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,384,220,218,383],"yoast_head":"\n