SUPREME\u00a0General Assembly Of Law
\n1986\/1-281
\n1986\/490
\nDecision Date: 07.05.1986<\/p>\n
TITLE DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION CASE – PLAINTIFF OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION
\nBY DETERMINATION OF THE LAND REGISTRY
\nREQUEST FOR COMMENT – IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT
\nTHE POSSIBILITY OF CLARIFYING THE CLAIM TO THE LAND REGISTRY
\nAbsence
\nSummary: The plaintiff, although, built the two-storey house on real estate numbered 903 parcels, with his own money
\nthe claim made in relation to the house subject to the lawsuit, even though he requested that it be explained to the deed.
\nsince it is not possible to comment on the Land Registry, however, in the declarations section of the land registry
\nit can be shown.
\n(743 P. K. m. 919)
\nCase: at the end of the trial due to the case between the parties; Ta\u015fk\u00f6pr\u00fc First Instance law
\nExamination of the decision no. 25-642 and 7.12.1983 on the rejection of the case by the court
\nupon request by the plaintiff,
\n(…The parties are stakeholders for joint ownership in the 903 parcels of real estate subject to litigation. File
\naccording to its contents, the plaintiff said that the northbound two-storey house on the parcel belonged to him
\nhe wanted to identify and comment on the title deed in this way. The court also contested the building’s terekeye
\nsince it was made with the included money and the claim could not be proven, it was decided to dismiss the case with the wager.
\nHowever, local expert witnesses and witnesses heard in the record of the tapulama Mehmet Y., Yusuf Y.,
\nMehmet K. and the plaintiff witnesses November and Hussein by the plaintiff with their own money of the house subject to the case
\ntheir common inheritance is from the date of Rashid’s death, 1940, and the external division between his heirs
\nthey then reported that it had been built in a way that left no room for hesitation. This evidence is being pushed aside
\nthe defendants who made the statement that the contentious building was built with money included in the Muris cerekeesi
\nELife’s husband witness Mustafa \u00d6.the decision to dismiss the case in writing with respect to the word of the
\nthere is no harm in giving…) on the grounds that the file is being turned back instead of being corrupted, re-made
\nat the end of the trial, the court resisted the previous decision.
\nThe law was examined by the General Assembly and it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during its duration; and
\nafter reading the papers in the file, the requirement was discussed:
\nDecision: the plaintiff is determined that the house in question was made by him and thus the land registry
\nhe asked for comment; the court dismissed the case, admitting that the claim could not be proven. File
\nwith evidence collected and corroborating each other, the plaintiff proved that the house was built by him.
\nThe plaintiff, although, built the two-storey house on real estate numbered 903 parcels, with his own money
\nthe claim made in relation to the house subject to the lawsuit, even though he requested that it be explained to the deed.
\nsince it is not possible to comment on the Land Registry, however, in the declarations section of the land registry
\nit can be shown.
\nThen, according to the evidence collected, the house in question was made by the plaintiff
\nSynergy legislation and Case Law Program page 1\/2
\nEsas No.:
\nDecision No:
\nSUPREME
\n. General Assembly Of Law
\n1986\/1-281
\n1986\/490
\nDecision Date: 07.05.1986
\nT.C.
\nto be understood; with the acceptance of the case, the declaration of the title deed Register that the house was built by the plaintiff
\nwhile the decision should be made to write to the house, the refusal of the case should be resisted in the provision of the procedure and
\nIt is against the law. Therefore, the decision to resist must be overturned.
\nConclusion: the decision of the plaintiff to resist with the acceptance of the appeals Appeals described above and the special circle
\nit was decided by unanimous decision to have it overturned due to the reasons cited in the notice of impairment. (\u00a4\u00a4)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
SUPREME\u00a0General Assembly Of Law 1986\/1-281 1986\/490 Decision Date: 07.05.1986 TITLE DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION CASE – PLAINTIFF OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION BY DETERMINATION OF THE LAND REGISTRY REQUEST FOR COMMENT – IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT THE POSSIBILITY OF CLARIFYING…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218,459],"yoast_head":"\n