Anasayfa » Blog » Magistrate Courts Are Responsible For Stakeholder Removal Cases Involving Real Estate

Magistrate Courts Are Responsible For Stakeholder Removal Cases Involving Real Estate

14. Legal Department 2020/4125 E. , 2021/1110 K.

“Text Of Jurisprudence”

COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance

Due to the decommissioning and registration case between the parties, it was decided to reject the above-mentioned written decision issued by the district court on 09/14/2020 and 2016/16284, as well as Decision No. 2020/4931 of our Department, since the appeal request is not in due course. Although the decision was requested to be corrected by the plaintiff’s deputy within the time limit, all the documents in the file were examined and considered necessary:
Decision

Sue, TMC 696. it is related to the request for dismissal from the stakeholder based on the article.
Attorney for Plaintiff; Defendant from the premises to be bought with the defendant in the case with the tender stakeholder, legal and humanitarian place for 15 years in the case of Toki whether it is fulfilling its role of the market weren’t condominium and housing market has been occupied negative individuals against the project for years, if they were threatened when they try to fight for their legal rights by the defendant, about the place they purchase, even if they get to go to this place to see what it was that they were constantly threatened, and the defendant’s TMC ‘s 696. in accordance with the article, he demanded and sued to be removed from the stakeholder position and to end TOKI’s stakeholder position and decide on the registration of his shares in their names.
The defendant’s deputy defended the refusal of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case.
Upon the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney, it was decided to reject the decision as the decision of our Department dated 14.09.2020 and based on 2016/16284, Decision No. 2020/4931 is not within the period of the appeal request.
The deputy plaintiff has requested a decision correction.
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. according to the article, the court in charge of cases related to the rights to property, regardless of the value and amount of the subject of the case, as well as cases related to the presence of a person, is the court of first instance, unless there is a contrary regulation. Unless there is a contrary regulation in this Law and other laws, the court of first instance is also responsible for other cases and affairs.
The duty is related to public order and must be taken into account by the court spontaneously at every stage of the trial.
Since the plaintiff party demands that the defendant be removed from the stakeholder in the bet because it makes the defendant’s shared ownership relationship unbearable in the immovable property No. 512 ada 4 parsel, the subject of the lawsuit is 696 of the Turkish Civil Code. according to its article, it must be considered in the magistrate’s court. It is not right for the court of first instance, which is not in charge, to examine the merits of the case and to rule on the grounds that the magistrate’s court is in charge of resolving the dispute, taking into account the duty of the court from the public order.
As a result of the aforementioned provision, while appellate review as a result of a material error reason is corruption because it is not a denial of Appeals, where the decision is made during the period, however, the plaintiff’s attorney made the request for the appeal in time because it is understood this time with a review of the plaintiff’s attorney with the acceptance of the request for correction of the decision of our apartment 14.09.2020 2016/16284 date and is based on the lifting of the warrant by the provision of Decision No. 2020/4931 the above-mentioned reason corruption decision had to be made.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was decided unanimously on 22.02.2021 that there is no place for the REMOVAL of Decision No. 2016/16284 of our Apartment dated 14.09.2020 and Decision No. 2020/4931, VIOLATION of the provision, examination of other appeals for the reason of the violation, refund of the fee received in advance to the depositor.

 

You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here

Bir yanıt yazın

E-posta adresiniz yayınlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir