T.C. SUPREME COURT<\/p>\n
1.law office<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Base: 2014\/11142<\/p>\n
Decision: 2016\/7262<\/p>\n
Date of Decision: 14.06.2016<\/p>\n
land registry<\/p>\n
CASE OF CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS \u2013 DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SHARED OWNERSHIP WILL BE APPLIED IN DISPUTES BETWEEN HEIRS AND EACH OTHER AND THAT THEY CAN BE SUED WITH A REQUEST AT THE RATE OF SHARES \u2013 THE DECISIVENESS OF ESTABLISHING A PROVISION WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MERITS OF THE WORK – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
ABSTRACT: The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case filed with the cancellation-registration request cannot be heard at the rate of a share in terms of the legal reason for the \u201cdriver’s license\u201d, which should be examined first of all from the requests put forward. However, since the provisions of shared ownership provided for in articles 688 of law No. 4721 and the dec articles will be applied in disputes between heirs, it is possible that lawsuits can be filed with a request at the share ratio. Instead of studying the merits of the work and making a decision based on its conclusion, it is not right to make a provision in writing.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
(6098 P. K. m. 19, 36) (4721 pp. K. m. 688)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Tuesday, Dec. 14.06.2016, which is determined as the day of the hearing, the appellants are the deputy Lawyer … and the deputy Lawyer who is being appealed upon the notification made for Tuesday, 14.06.2016, although the decision made by the local court regarding the rejection of the case has been appealed by the plaintiffs within the legal period On the contrary, the report prepared by the Examining Magistrate was read, and his opinion was taken. The case was reviewed and discussed as necessary:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The case is related to the request for cancellation of the title deed-registration at the rate of shares filed on the basis of the legal reasons of \u201dlegal incompetence\u201c, \u201dcheating\u201c and \u201dmuris muvazaas\u0131”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the case filed with the cancellation-registration request at the rate of a share in terms of the legal reason for the \u201cdriver’s license\u201d, which should be examined first of all from the requests put forward, cannot be heard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
However, since the provisions of shared ownership provided for in Articles 688 and dec of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 will be applied in disputes between heirs, it is possible that lawsuits can be filed with a request at the share ratio.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the concrete case, both the plaintiffs and the defendant are the heirs of muris.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
As such, it is not right to make a provision in writing instead of examining the merits of the work and making a decision according to the result.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs’ appeal is in its place for the reason described. With its adoption, the provision (provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100.article 1086 HUMK.428 of the.1.350.00 for the deputy appellants arriving in accordance with the Attorney’s Fee Tariff, which entered into force on 21.12.2015, to be overturned in accordance with the article 1.350.00.TL. it was decided unanimously on 14.06.2016 that the power of attorney fee for the hearing should be taken away from the appellant and the down payment should be returned to the appellant. (\u00a4\u00a4)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n