8. Department of Law 2016/14010 E. , 2020/2504 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
THE DECISION EXAMINED
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
TYPE OF CASE : Cancellation and Registration of Title Deeds
At the end of the trial between the parties and conducted in the case described above, the Court decided to dismiss the case, and after the decision was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney and the defendants’ attorney, the dec file was reviewed and considered necessary.
Decision
Attorney for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit attorneys ‘ Muris with those who …’s parcel of immovable island of the defendants No. 9 in 1978 that portion of 151 square meters Muris Tan 23897 externally bought …’s passed away in 1978, he left the defendant and their heirs backwards, …’s nearly 36 years since the death of immovable hence the aforementioned conditions in terms of winning clients with exceptional saver timeout in the section that had taken place during this time, if any of the aforementioned in the title deed in the name of foreclosed immovable, in the case of externally purchased the immovable portion Muris those who substitute for the aforementioned …’s also in 2014, explaining that the defendants moved premises subject of the case by parcel No. 23897 island Muris 9 … the name of the title deed in terms of section of this part of the immovable if the aforementioned them land registration and cancellation request on their behalf, then the file a petition dated 04.01.2016 breeding to the breeding of the case and completely as uncertain demand by presenting parcel No. 24163 Island 3 from the direction of the receivables immovable nature, 5.000,00 TL that will get you have made the case.
From the defendants …, …, … and … the deputy defended the refusal of the case by stating in the response petition that the plaintiff had not submitted any evidence to the file regarding the sale, and that it was clear from the official records that all the parcels that had been paid for had been completed by the land registry transfers.
The other defendants did not respond to the lawsuit despite being duly notified of it.
The case was initially settled by cancellation of the title deed and registration (TMK’s 713/2. 180 of the HMK of the plaintiff party after the registration in the article is filed as a lawsuit based on the reason that the title deed has lost its legal value due to the fact that the owner is dead). according to its article, it is a case that turns into a receivable request with its full reclamation (It is an indefinite receivable case).
By the court, “the expert witness in litigation as a result of the review conducted with the subject’s declaration of immovable island 23897 parcel No. 9, between the parties related to the subject area Muris of sale is not a sale of the subject parcel is subject to the case where it is understood that approximately 50 metres to the North is a vacant lot, parcel of the immovable Island 3 No. 24163 he was staying in the area in question, accordingly the plaintiff’s deed and registration of the case regarding the subject that does not move and place demands cancel animosity against the defendant concluded that the claim did not fall, moreover, the plaintiffs in their case the defendant with the petition of counsel court order dated 04.01.2016 money Nusret Eryurt heirs …, …, … and … has rehabilitated tells filed for petition, the amended claims as of the date of receipt of parcel No. 24163 Island 3 related moved 358 m2 of land according to the conditions of sale will arrive by the date that the purchasing power, ambiguous as it will get for now 5.000,00 TL fulfillment of legal interest from the date that it is impossible to be applied together with the requested collection, after the decision was made to dismiss the case on the grounds that ”it is not legally possible to import something that is not the subject of a lawsuit into the case through reclamation and make it the subject of a lawsuit, and therefore the request for reclamation must be rejected”, the decision was appealed separately from the plaintiffs’ deputy and the defendants’ …, …, and … deputy.
In the concrete case, the report of the regulation dated 02.12.2015, prepared by the expert committee, 7. on the page of the case portion of the subject parcel of the immovable island 23897 9 square meters 151,00 written in the petition is not within the boundaries of the immovable Island 3 No. 24163 parcel remains within upon determining that the plaintiffs to petition the aforementioned order dated 04.01.2016 breeding by presenting a petition of counsel for the money, “Mills County District 23897 island Altındağ-3 Nusret parcel of land was sold to land registered in the name of someone else eryurt and transfer has become impossible. In the light of the expert report and the documents in the file, we are fully correcting our case as an indefinite receivable case for the four defendants mentioned in this petition,” HMK’s 180th reclamation petition containing statements such as “We are fully correcting our case in accordance with the expert report and the documents in the file. according to the article, he mentioned the outcome of the petition completely rehabilitated breeding request in section i, “ name 24163/3/358 square meters plot of land as of the date of receipt of the date of sale by purchasing power will arrive impossible(according to the rules of compensatory justice) will obscure for now as 5.000,00 TL with legal interest from the date of fulfillment of that it is impossible to be applied from the defendant …, …, … and …’tan collection ” in the form of demand and the registration of the deed in the beginning of the case the cancellation request to claim has transformed. HMK’s 177th. and 180. in accordance with the articles, the plaintiff can fully correct his case until the end of the investigation. It is for this reason that the court considers that HMK 177 and 180. while the plaintiff must decide on the request made with the reclamation by collecting the evidence of the parties in accordance with the request of the plaintiff to completely rectify the case by taking its articles into consideration; breeding is meant by the issues in the case of extended or changed something that is not the case that the reclamation of the case through the importation and to become the subject of a lawsuit is not legally possible to give a decision in writing in a format that has the right not yanilgili evaluation.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, the decision to accept the appeals of the plaintiffs’ attorney, which is contrary to the procedure and law, is made in accordance with the Provisional Article 3 of the HMK No. 6100. according to Article 428 of the Code No. 1086. according to article 440/1 of the HUMK, the parties believe that there is no place for the examination of the appeals of the defendants, …,, … and … their attorney for the time being, according to the reason for the violation, the reason for the violation. in accordance with the article, it was decided unanimously on 12.03.2020 that a request for correction of the decision may be made within 15 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and if requested, the advance fee may be returned separately to the appellants.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here