BUILDING ON SOMEONE ELSE’S PLOT-THE PLOT OF THE BUILDING
\n– THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS NOT WELL-VERSED .
\n– THE EXISTENCE OF THE SITUATION TO BE OBSERVED BY THE COURT-CALIPHATE
\nTHE CLAIMING PARTY MUST BE OBLIGED WITH PROOF
\nSummary: someone else’s land on his own equipment with the value of the building more than the value of the land
\nto be able to request the assignment of the land and the building’s literature in exchange for the owner of the materials
\nTo the realization of the requirement that he has acted with good faith by the provisions of Article 650 of the Civil Code
\nit has been found bound. Case and presumption of the situation in the event of the need to take care of the aspect expected from him
\nthe provision, which has been determined that it cannot claim goodwill by law as it has not been used.
\nthe transfer request of the owner based on this article cannot be accepted. From the provisions of this article
\nas with the legal license and so on.
\nmatters must be taken into account by the court, and there is a legal and legal obstacle to this.
\nis not included.
\n(1086 P. K. m. 75, 238, 239) (743 P. K. m. 3, 650)
\nWhether good and bad will can be taken into consideration by the court and the burden of beyyine to the parties
\nlaw offices a copy of the Supreme Court in matters of style and pointing the first and 22.3.1949 date and 8743\/1384
\nCase law between the rulings of the fifth Law Department dated 29.3.1949 and numbered 3683\/857
\nthe fifth Legal Department of the Court of Cassation with which the dispute was found is numbered 72 and dated 17.6.1949
\nexamples of the above-mentioned injunctions were reproduced and distributed by writing and dated 11.12.1950
\nthe meeting was informed to members of the General Assembly that the talks would begin at 9.5 pm on Monday.
\nToday, the meeting of the board (elliki) is seen as participating in the Quorum of the negotiation accrues
\nthe dispute has been discussed under the chairmanship of First President Fevzi Bozer.
\nafter the papers were read and the summary of the incident was explained by the first president;
\nFifth Legal Department Head Y. Kemal Arslansan; case law dispute between the decisions of the two chambers,
\nIn accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code,
\nstating that he cannot make a claim of goodwill by law due to his lack of care
\nno one has to prove the evil to the other side whether or not it will come, good and evil.
\nthe court meets at the points of whether it can be taken as an official consideration.
\nOur department’s opinion and opinion starting from the summary of the incident that caused the conflict and the cause of the conflict.
\nI’ll explain your thinking.<\/p>\n
The boundaries of the site and the fact included in the zoning plan at the external gate in Ankara
\ntwenty-six buildings which were built on land deed whose land area was also determined by cadastre
\ndetermination of the evidence on the cases against the owners of the equipment about the destruction of the report
\nas shown, the land owned in violation of the city plan without obtaining the required license from the municipality
\nthe buildings that were built on the night to be demolished because there is no exorbitant damage
\nit was decided to prevent the actual interventions of the supply owners.
\n1-the equipment that makes the buildings without making the necessary investigation about whether the land is deed or not
\ncan the owners legally claim goodwill?
\n2-the person whose situation has become apparent who cannot claim good faith by law, and the person whose badness is other
\ndoes the party need to prove it?
\n3-supplies, which have not yet confirmed that there is a place belonging to the Treasury in the vicinity and adjacent to it.
\nbadness to them because the owners built the buildings because they thought they belonged to the Treasury
\ncould their plea that it could not be attributed be worth the compliment to the deed?
\n4-the owner of the provisions of Article 650 of the Civil Code is required to make use of the provisions
\nhow will his well-being be sought?
\n5-can good and evil be considered by the court?
\nIn cases where goodness is stipulated for the birth of a right, it is his body that is the principal. Proof claiming caliphate
\nwith IS payer. There is no dispute in this explicit provision of the law. However; Civil
\nThe second paragraph of the third article of the law did not give the attention expected of him by the provisions of
\nthe evil of the real caliphate of anyone who cannot claim to be of good faith by law.
\nthe emergent state. In this case, your constant and assuredly evil is now proof to the other side.
\nthere will be no reason and no reason. Binaenaleyh registered on the claimant in the deed and kadarstroca
\nlimits and quantities of land determined on the city plan despite the m\u00fcmanaata night contrary
\nas twenty-odd buildings have made the villainy of the owners of the equipment in the event to prove to the owner of the plot
\nthey have not gone to the world to be made and they have done the building with the belief that it belongs to the treasure.
\nthe second paragraph in question is that their defense against attribution is not worthy of compliment.
\nit complies with the provisions of the Civil Code and contravenes the provisions of procedure with Article Six of the Civil Code.
\nis not. The owner of the building with his own supplies to someone else’s Land Act with good faith
\nhe may, as he has done, benefit from the provision of Article 650 of the Civil Code, but
\nthe city despite mene at night on the land owned without the attention expected from them
\nsupply owners who build buildings contrary to his plan cannot legally claim goodwill. By law
\nwhoever appears unable to claim good deeds is evil. Thus, the owners of supplies
\nthere is no room to prove their evil deeds to the landowner. Facts and presumption
\nit seems that this situation is officially taken into consideration by the court. And it is a record in our legislation to prevent this and
\nthere is no provision.
\nConclusion; the owner of a building in a place that he thinks belongs to him claims to be well-being
\ncan be found: or as in the event that we can acquire the property in the future to a place belonging to the Treasury
\nthe owners of the building can not claim goodwill by law. Goodwill by law
\nthe badness of a person who cannot claim is also apparent and thus his badness is fixed.
\nand the other party shall not be held liable for proof of the malice of a person who is a beneficiary. In such cases, good and evil shall be treated by the court.
\nresen is taken into consideration. Decision of our department 650 th with the second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code
\nit is fully compliant with the provisions of the article.
\n\u015eevkati \u00d6zkutlu, head of the first legal department; if there were only one or two acts, the law would be included
\nwhat it would take. When happiness is the real thing, it’s the power of water. That’s what good is. But the other side is no.
\nhe will say that Presumption is evil in its remit.
\nSuat Bertan; there are two main rulings in Tawhidi jurisprudence. 650 th article mucibince what the building has done
\nwill it be? There is no difference in terms of state and ownership. If it enters article 912, 650
\nthe Pearl substance is not applied. 650 th article applied if building on the street as a state
\ncannot be obtained. When a person claims a claim based on a claim, its main elements accrue
\nhe must prove it.
\nImran \u00d6ktem; according to the third article of the Civil Code, goodwill is the principal. Proof to the contrary
\nshould work. However article 650 acts with the good of the owner of the supplies to make use of this article
\nthere is a requirement to be made. The party wishing to benefit from a provision of the law
\nit must prove the elements that matter composes. This is in accordance with Article Six of the Civil Code.
\nHere, the presumption in the third clause cannot be used by the Quartermaster. Because, Article 650 of this charter
\nit says its existence should also be proved. If you had to take advantage of the presumption in Article three
\n650 th article (vazim holder, whose malice has not been proven) was referred to as. Another reason for this is
\nhas. There’s a land in the middle that’s registered in the deed. Another person comes in and builds here. Someone else
\nthe badness in building his plot is obvious and obvious. That the master of supplies is acting well for us
\nhe has to put forward a case that we accept that he is of good faith. The cases he asserts are good
\nif it shows, and the owner of the plot denies these cases, it is of course very unlikely that the proof of these cases will be given to the owner of the equipment.
\nhe’ll fall. For example: he bought the land from the owner and built the building with his consent…
\nOr he has a deed in his hand. The boundaries in this bond have made itself a mistake and so on….
\nas… otherwise, he cannot predict the burden of proof by saying m\u00fcjerret (I am good). Essentially
\nThere is also a deficiency in the translation of Article 650. Asl\u0131 (the value of the building clearly plot
\nto the owner of the property of the party majmuun who has good fortune rather than its value
\nyou can ask for the assignment). In other words, if the owner of the provision is the owner of the good deed, he will ask for the assignment. Destroyed plot
\nif the owner is of good faith, the owner of the land will ask for the assignment of mecmuunun to the owner of the supplies. Of this article if
\nif your drill needs to be based on the presumption of Article three, we’re in a dead end. Proving who has bad faith
\nis going to? However, the owner of the land and the owner of the materials claim to be good separately according to the
\nthey will be asked to give a sign of good, and each will be asked to give a sign of good.
\nWhichever one proves his good will be taken into consideration. In the event the owner of supplies (I buras\u0131n\u0131
\nhe says, ‘I built the building as the location of the treasure’. He said such an accusation does not imply goodwill.Fifth Legal Department Head Y.K. Arslansan; does Malice have to be proven in any case? And
\ncan the court be resentful? At its points, discord gathers. First Law
\nHis apartment needs to be proven evil. On the discovery of land deed places
\nit does not require the owners of the building materials to be considered as bad and it is in case law that cannot be taken into consideration by the court. However
\nit is understood that he did not take the expected care of the person who claims to be well-being.
\ncannot be found. The badness of a person who cannot claim good deeds by law is constant and constant.
\nI think that there is no need for proof of the Shayi issues is the sentence of procedural rules. In this case
\nevil needs to be proved to the other side and there is no place. The reason and considerations
\nthere is no need to prove malice because of it. The court’s case and treatment is good and
\nthere is no legal record or provision for him to take an official view by appreciating his malice. Halin
\nthe second paragraph of the third article of the Civil Code, in which good and evil can be exploited.
\nit’s a matter of clear judgment.
\nDue to the scarcity of time, leaving the next session to continue the negotiation tensip
\nhas been made. 11.12.1950
\n– (Second Session: 14.2.1951 Wednesday Time: 9.30)
\nSince the time has passed since the first session, it is possible that the rulings on the subject of conflict have been read.
\nand after the incident was explained again by the first president,;
\nThe head of the first legal department, \u015eefkati \u00d6zkutlu, said in the last session about the subject of the dispute.
\nmy thoughts are high with the clarity I want and in the light of logic that can erase all darkness
\nI didn’t report it to the board. Now I’ll work on that in my exposure.
\nFrom the motion of the higher Fifth Law Office, which states that there is a case law dispute in my words
\nI’m going to start.
\nIn this motion, the high fifth Legal Department has the right to defend the well-being of those who are being sued.
\na statement on whether the plaintiffs had made a claim of malevolence even though they stated they had been found
\nwhat does not mean to. The department says in its thesis: “Property savings of the land subject to litigation
\nthe due diligence required by law by making an investigation into the aspect of the situation required
\nwithout showing and without getting a license from the municipality in the Department of procedure written in the provision paragraph
\nthe defendants, who had the buildings constructed at the time and under circumstances and circumstances, are entitled to a aspect of goodwill.
\nhe can’t make a bet. Since the building was under construction, it was believed that the land belonged to the Treasury.
\nthe defense against the claim based on the deed is worth a compliment.
\nthe provisions of the court of first instance were upheld by the agency on the grounds that it was not of nature.
\nAnother decree of the same nature is that no evidence of malice has been shown by the First Law Office.
\nthe fact that the title of the state and the proper place is considered to be evidence of the defendants ‘ malice is corrupt.
\nbet’s broken.”<\/p>\n
the evidence shows the presumption and the court admonished that the person being prosecuted is evil.
\nit means he’s accepted. Since the case law of our department is in this center, there is a case law conflict.
\nit means there’s no point. Although the plaintiff did not claim any wrongdoing, the court did not issue the promissory notes.,
\nhe found this evidence and presumption by himself from the statements of experts and even from the claim and defence.
\nand again, if he has decided that those who are being sued by himself are evil, I believe
\nthe court has no jurisdiction.
\nNow the plaintiff has shown evidence and presumption of malice and they are appreciated by the court
\nlet us state that’s accepted is malicious, sue. If the court, the case is that
\nafter receiving the case, he asked the defendant for evidence of his well-being, if he did not show it, first instance.
\nthe verdict of his court is also correct, as is the confirmation of the fifth chamber.
\nThis style does not contradict the case law of our department.
\nThe high Chamber says that there is a case law dispute between the decisions of our chamber and its own decisions in its submissions.
\nnot content with showing that there is also conflict between the decisions of our department and the undersecretary
\nhe has also indicated to the High Council that we have returned from our jurisprudence.
\nIt is connected to the thesis of the higher Fifth Law Department and is open between the two decrees found in our department.
\nthere is no case law difference.
\nThe person named Seyit filed a lawsuit against Ismail and his friends in Ankara court
\nto pour mudbrick on the land and to make huts on the land.
\nhe wanted to prevent the interference of wagers because they had committed unlawful rape by means of and
\nat the end of the trial, the claims of those being sued about having good faith have a legal reason
\nsince the damage was not sustained and the damage was not exorbitant in the demolition and the plaintiff did not consent to the foundation
\nthe decision made by our department regarding the thickness of the buildings on 10 May 947 stated that ” the place where they intervened is a
\nclaims of those who are sued that they received a notary deed or ordinary deed from someone else to the deed deed
\nthere will be no heir to the claim based on and Halim of those who are being sued at the time of building the plot
\nif he finds another place after the declaration that the plaintiff has consented, he will demolish the building
\nthe others admit that the plaintiff had no news or knowledge while they were building the building.
\nsince they took action, the objections were not in place and the bet was upheld.
\nThis is what the warrant says. One of the Sued has accepted the case and the others have good faith.
\nI mean, they knew that the land belonged to the plaintiff, but they didn’t know about it.
\nthe decision of the court of first instance was upheld by the department because they admitted their actions. This is our warrant.
\nas such, it is not natural to say that there is a conflict between the decisions of our department.<\/p>\n
Member Imran \u00d6ktem; there is no exchange among the decrees on the subject of controversy. Is why it is called. One person is the same
\nhe is filing two lawsuits against two individuals based on the deed of deed. Defendants defend the same defense in both cases
\nthey’re putting it forward. The court of first instance makes the same decision. One of them goes to an apartment, gets tastic.
\nThe other goes to another apartment (his malice must prove to the plaintiff) so he breaks down. Among the decisions of the circle
\nthe exchange is obvious.
\nThe owner of a flat couldn’t prove his goodness. Says that are malicious. Other apartment villainy plot
\nthe owner says to prove it. As for the basis of the work: the owner of the supplies based on Article 650 of this article
\nit is responsible for proving the conditions and elements it seeks, and cases which in the meantime will indicate good faith. Cause
\nI explained it in the previous session. The case law of the Supreme Court was also at this center. First Law
\nHis high office subsequently changed this case law. New case law worries land owners and
\nit must have provoked unrest. If a plot within the deed is put in a night within a night
\nhow can I prove the ill will of the builder? Unrest for these case law land owners
\nmenbai is going to have to be removed.
\nIt is said: Since the owner of the land is the plaintiff and since the owner of the supply claims the villainy. He
\nhowever, the owner of the plot should prove the villainy. Because beyyine m\u00fcddeiye is a trustee. This opinions
\nis incorrect. Because the two cases are intertwined. Land owner’s case deed to the place fuzuli
\nintervention is semen. In this case the owner of the land will prove that this place is mutasarrif by deed.
\nThere is no need to seek proof other than him. A lawsuit by the Quartermaster against it
\nthere is. It’s based on Article 650. He wants to assign the land to himself. Such that the owner of the supply
\nhad it not been for his case, his intervention would have been barred. The proprietor must also prove the reciprocity case. Another
\nin between the circumstances, cases that indicate well-being will also prove to be the Quartermaster. Because the assignment
\nin his case, he is the breadwinner. As a result, the last case law of the first legal department is given to beyyine
\nit is not right to predict burdens.
\nMember Vehbi Yekebe\u015f, the basis of the explanation given by the relevant parties during the negotiations that took place
\nthere’s nothing left to say about the matter. There’s a point when I renounce my promise.
\nI will dwell on it; and I will also make a short sacred for it: Once Upon a plot
\nconstruction to be done, in principle, is subject to the land; in legal terms, the land will be a lump sum. Principle
\nhowever, in the construction on this road, the consent of the owner of the land or the owner of the supplies is present.
\nwhat if it’s not? The main thing in this is the old rendering, which is necessary for this burden to the owner of the error.
\nit is loading. It would allow this reinstatement to do no harm. Hurt if it matter if,
\nthe present condition shall be retained with a maximum or minimum compensation if it has been done in due course. This
\nthe value of the building made on someone else’s land rather than the value of the land open to the public
\nin the case of the “owner of supplies acting with dignity”, the ownership of the land shall be transferred to him with a reasonable compensation.
\nhe could ask for it. Here, three conditions are required for acquiring land ownership: 1-a clear excess of building value,
\n2-the wishfulness of the Quartermaster,
\n3-Muhik compensation,
\nToday’s negotiation has given up on the first and third terms and the need for the accretion of the second.
\ninvolves.
\nHere, as an essential base for the owner of the materialization of the event for the wishnuniyesi
\nA case like Mr. Suat Bertan said should be determined and appreciated before the judge.;
\nUntil, according to the dominant substance, is there any happiness? So he can transfer it. Nonetheless
\nafter the owner of the material proves his \/ her wishfulness through the draught of the verb attributed to him \/ her, the other
\nthe party also considers the substance of this case according to its own opinion and the wateriness of the construction owner.
\nmay prove. In this respect, for both sides, the possibility of mutual happiness and suiniyeti
\ndair Mr. \u015eekkati \u00d6zkutlu’s opinion is also in place.
\nSo what is the proof with and how? The reasoning procedures determine the reasons of Subut as follows: confession, written
\nbeyyine, official record, discovery and expert report, shahadet v.P.
\nThe owner of the quartermaster who set up the night lodge here, I thought it was the property of the state; I raped him. Apparently
\nhe says that someone else is the plaintiff, and that he will attest to his ill will. If this defense is tested and tested a little bit
\nit is seen that there is an agreement with the state that owns the plot, its treatment, its own movement.
\nit has nothing to do with legitimacy. I believe that this rape of the state, in certain forms,
\nhe has no defense other than to say that he was going to give it to me, that he was going to give it to the state; that is, his movement.
\nthe fact that he is wrong is fixed by his own confession, which is one of the Subut proofs. Wishful thinking in this article
\nit is completely objective. I mean, this guy’s gonna GASB this building into a land that’s not his.
\nhe set it up with the intention of inventing magsubunminhi in the circle of circumstances that will come into existence in the future. Therefore
\nobjektivmant suiniyesi is rare. In fact, for example, with the intention of encroaching on the plot of (X) the plot of (S)
\nif he raped and said that he wanted to rape the plot of (X), this intention was to rape the plot of S.
\nit’s not a brainchild of misogyny. In the matter of property, there is no difference between the state and the individuals.
\nIt is subject to the same provision.
\nFirst president; in Article 650 of the Civil Code ” the value of the building is clearly from the value of the land
\nrather, the owner of the supplies who acts with Good Will is entitled to compensation in exchange for a muhik mecmuunun
\nhe may ask that his property be given to him.”
\nIt is understood from this article that the owner of the provision for the birth of the right of fundamental act with good faith.
\nmust be made. Article three of the Civil Code
\nit is his body that is the main thing in the circumstances that are conditioned to be wishful thinking.
\nTo prove the caliphate in the form of the body of happiness falls to the party that claims the evil. Although
\nIn the sixth article of the Civil Code, ” the law does not command the caliphate of each and every one of them.
\nit is obligatory to prove”, although it is written that the caliphate was ordered in the third article, the burden of the beyyine in the form of the body of wisdom, the claim that it was acted with malice.
\nwhoever places his trust in the side. But when is good supposed to exist? The third item is to this matter
\nhis second paragraph answers plainly. In this paragraph (however, according to the case expected from him
\nno one who does not care can claim to be wishful thinking) is called. Our law, from itself
\nhe does not assume that anyone who does not exercise the expected attention and attention is of good faith. Bad faith in this case
\nit’s self-constant. Because, to avoid the attention and attention expected of him, with malice
\nMousavi is. There is no need for further proof of evil or good.
\nAs to whether the court can take evil or good into consideration by itself;
\naccording to the Sarah of Article 650 mentioned, goodwill is one of the main elements of the case. Binaenaleyh
\nin the claims and defenses of the parties, it is necessary to chant with certainty. If this matter is ambiguous
\nthe court shall decide according to the case by taking explanation from the parties by the seventy-fifth article of procedure.
\nis obligated to give.
\nIn both cases, the land within the city, which is included in the zoning plan and registered in the deed without cause and due to
\naccording to the case, the defendant’s well-intentioned approach to construction by not taking care of himself is expected.
\nthe rules of law are not available to assume. Although the plaintiff, the defendant in the lawsuit is bad
\nif the defendant has claimed that he intended to do so, the court will respect the defendant’s well-being and the evidence will be appreciated.
\nprove the plaintiff’s claim of malice, as it has been concluded that he cannot make his claim
\nthere is no obligation. For this reason, the decision of the fifth Legal Department is more in line with the provisions of the law
\nI am of that opinion. Ultimately saying;
\nThe subject of the dispute is the malice of the person who cannot, by law, claim goodwill.
\nwhether the party needs to be proved and whether good and evil can be taken into account by the court.
\nit constitutes considerations that cannot be taken.
\nTo prove to the other party the malice of the original by the First Law Department of the Supreme Court, and to prove to the other party the good and the bad.
\nthe Supreme Court of Appeals, even though it is in its case law that malice cannot be taken into consideration by the court.
\nThe Fifth Chamber of law cannot legally assert good deeds against the other side of anyone’s malice
\nit is no longer necessary to prove it and this situation can be taken into consideration by the court.
\nthe provisions of Articles three, six, 650 of the Civil Code of the same event
\nthere is a discrepancy in the meaning and application styles.
\nBy the provisions of Article three of our civil code, goodwill is legally required for the birth of a right.
\nit is the fundamental basis on which his body is the real one. The party claiming the caliphate by nature with proof
\nit’s homework. However, in accordance with the second paragraph of this article, according to the requirements of the situation is expected from him.
\nthe real caliphate of no one who can claim to be of good faith by law because he has not taken care of it
\nin this case, the main principle is applied to prove the badness to the other side.
\ncollecting your reasons and won’t. Proving a fixed and conclusive point to the other party
\nthe sixth of the Civil Code which regulates the form and style of the burden of beyyine to go to the world.
\nit does not contradict any aspect of the procedural provisions with its article.<\/p>\n
Who has built more than the value of the land with his own supplies on someone else’s land
\nto be able to request the assignment of the land and the building’s literature in exchange for the compensation of the owner of the quarter
\nArticle 650 of the Civil Code stipulates that he has acted with good faith.
\nit was based on accrual. Case and presumption of the situation in the event of the necessity of the aspect itself
\nas he did not take the expected care, it became apparent that he could not make a claim of goodwill by law.
\nthe assignment request of the owner of the equipment based on this article cannot be accepted. From the provisions of this article
\nas with the legal license and so on.
\nthere is no legal or legal impediment to this.
\nSome Turkish and Swiss authors mentioned in the explanation of the third article of the Civil Code 650
\nthe fact that the article Pearl has been shown as an example is also legal for the reasons described above.
\nand to anyone who appears unable to claim goodwill, the provision is that the main rule will be Shamil.
\ncan not be removed.
\nConclusion; in case of fact and presumption, the situation has emerged that the law cannot claim goodwill.
\nthat no one who is, will have any more reason and reason to prove evil to the other side, and that the case
\ngood and evil, which gives birth or disposes of his right, shall in this case be ex officio by the court.
\nit was decided on 14.2.1951 by a majority that passed two-thirds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
BUILDING ON SOMEONE ELSE’S PLOT-THE PLOT OF THE BUILDING – THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS NOT WELL-VERSED . – THE EXISTENCE OF THE SITUATION TO BE OBSERVED BY THE COURT-CALIPHATE THE CLAIMING PARTY MUST BE OBLIGED WITH PROOF Summary: someone else’s land on his…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,470,471,469,472,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n