General Assembly of the Law 2017/1207 E. , 2019/325 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
At the end of the trial between the parties for the case of “cancellation and registration of title deeds” (decommissioned) Kadikoy 1. The decision issued by the Court of First Instance on the dismissal of the case dated 29.05.2012 and dated 2010/339 E., 2012/243 K. upon appeal of the numbered decision by the deputy plaintiffs, the Court of Cassation 1. The Law Department has a certificate dated 14.11.2013 and dated 2013/5711 E., 2013/15915 K. by his numbered decision:
“…The case concerns the request for cancellation of the title deed, registration, compensation and compensation based on the legal cause of the muris muvazaa.
The court decided to dismiss the case.
The contents of the file and the evidence collected from the plaintiffs, who left a Legacy …’s widow and 8 children died and the heir to Muris on 27.11.2008 of the children, move premises registered in the name of Muris 3 consisting of sections numbered 2 parcel 6 independent apartment. it is understood that on 21.10.1993, he assigned the independent section No. 5 to the defendant’s son by showing the sale in the title deed.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit by claiming that the lien made by the testator to the defendant was for smuggling goods from the heiress and was slow, as a result of the trial held by the court, it was seen that the case was dismissed on the grounds that the liens were not slow and the slow claims could not be proven.
As is known, muvazaa, which is defined as “muris muvazaa” in practice and teaching, is a relative (mevsuf-qualified) type of muvazaa by its nature. The person who inherits the property in question really wants to make a contract and transfer his/her registered real estate. However, in order to deprive his heir of the right to inherit, he transfers his real estate, which he actually wants to donate, by hiding his main purpose, by explaining his will in accordance with the contract of sale or maintenance until death in the official contract he made in the deed.
In this case, the Case Law of the Supreme Court and l.4.1974 as explained in the Decision on Combining Beliefs No. 1/2, since the apparent contract does not comply with the true will of the parties, the secret donation contract is also subject to Article 706 of the Civil Code, Article 213 of the Code of Obligations and Article 26 of the Land Registry Code. since it lacks the form conditions provided for in its articles, all heirs whose right to inheritance has been violated, with or without a reserved share, can file a lawsuit to determine the invalidity of the official contract due to muvazaa and cancel the title deed registration created on the basis of it.
It should be noted immediately that the achievement of a healthy, fair and correct settlement of such disputes depends on the fact that the true direction of the guarantee to the defendant, in other words, the original will and purpose of the testator, will be revealed in a way that leaves no room for hesitation. Since it is often difficult to determine and clarify the true will and purpose, which is an internal problem and is hidden, complete collection of evidence in this direction, as well as their joint and correct evaluation, is of great importance. For this, the Customs and traditions of the country and the region, societal trends, the usual flow of events, excluding justified and reasonable in fulfilling the contract exists a cause of the deceased, whether or not the defendant’s buying power, whether it is the actual value at the date the difference between the sales price of the contract with the parties in cases such as the human relationship with the legator there are between necessity take advantage of.
On the other hand, if an apportionment has been made by the inheritor to an acceptable extent and covering all heirs, observing the balance of rights in his health, there is no question that the Decision of the Supreme Court No. 1/2 of 1.4.1974 to Unite Beliefs cannot be applied in the event, as there will be no mention of the intent to smuggle goods.
Considering the concrete case in the light of the above principles, in apartment 1, 2, and 3, which consists of 6 independent sections in immovable property numbered 3 parcels registered in the name of the testator, independent sections are still registered in the name of muris, muris’s child from another spouse plaintiff …, children of the same spouse plaintiff., Gülten left Ayşe and Ayten as heirs, murisin’s off-case child…….’e 3 independent sections numbered parcels and assign them to move premises and record of the case by the plaintiffs against the owners of collusion legal Muris based on the cause at hand, opened the case, whether the plaintiff is a child with other children between the Muris vahit Muris seen in the case of the plaintiff and
In fact, as mentioned above, in the Decision to Combine Case Law No. 1/2 of 01.04.1974, which constitutes the legal basis of cases filed on the basis of the legal cause of muris muvazaa, the real will of the testator must be accepted in the event that the evasion of property from the heir is the viability of the real will of the testator. In other words, the will of the muris is important.
The evidence collected by the court are evaluated within the framework of the principles described above, when the real purpose in relation to the legacy left by the heirs of the assignment and the assignment will miss stuff from and for this purpose it is performed, the defendant also doesn’t prove you paid the price given, it is indisputable that the process is collusive.
1989/3 07.02.1990 date and the Supreme Court of the General Assembly of Law–Decree No. 602 main 1990/56 Muris smuggle goods from the heirs of the sentence that may be considered collusion in an effort to made, based on the assignment was invalid because the subject of the case of the occupation of the defendant who acquired the shares as collusive real estate is not to be considered bona fide, and kidnapped goods from plaintiffs elapsed from the date of death until the date of Muris’s adequate for trial, you can request payment
As is known, decisions made based on the cause of failure are not innovative, but descriptive.
The transactions subject to the decisions made in this way are the property of butlan from the date they were made and they are considered not to have been made.
On the other hand, there is also no way to say that the person who is a party to the agreed transaction has good intentions. The transaction in which the party is located has no provision, and the registration thus formed is also a corrupt registration.
As a result, while the acceptance of the case filed and the amount of compensation to be determined should be decided, it is not true that the provision has been established as written with a erroneous assessment…”
at the end of the re-trial, the court resisted the previous decision.
DECISION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JURISPRUDENCE
After it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and the documents in the file were read, the requirement was discussed:
The case is related to the cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the legal reason of muris muvazaa, compensation and ecrimisil request if it is not.
The deputy plaintiffs stated that the joint murisi (father) of the parties … died as a widow on 27.11.2008, there were eight heirs left behind, all of whom had children, while the entire apartment consisting of six independent sections registered in the 3 parcels subject to the lawsuit was registered in the name of muris, while Murisin’s 4 apartment was out of the case on 28.12.1993. The mustache, the subject matter of the case is flat No. 5 sales by handing the deed to the defendant if 21.10.1993 on the date of show, however, that all the heirs of the assignment is for sale from collusive and, in reality, that you were forgiven for real estate, likewise, who retired from the agency at that time Muris Social Security money is not needed, the apartment until it dies with the defendant to sit in one of the other five when they receive the rent of apartments, the son that had no justifiable reason to sell the apartment, immovable by the plaintiff in the years 1977-1978 Muris it had been built with … , this chapter Muris other assets that had six independent, citing the case of the deed of the immovable subject of the plaintiff’s share shall be cancelled and record at a rate of their registration in the name, this isn’t possible, the amount of the collection and also share this in case corresponds to the case backwards from the date of the five-year period on the surplus for without prejudice to the rights 1.000,00 TL ecrimisil demand and the decision has prosecuted to the collection.
The defendant bought by paying real estate TL 40.000.000, which is the fair value at that date, was shown on the deed of low sales price if the sale is of real, and all the Brethren know the situation, and salary is not the absence of Muris retired in 1993, early retirement, saying that he needed the money for the move to pay their children sitting either buy or rent premises, he said, despite making their money by making the building a minimum of two years, he and his two brothers bought by the apartments of the residence of paying money, the plaintiff in the construction of the first and second floor apartments …’s works, it is finished with four apartment has its own gain, that on the same date, sixteen-year senior and the material is in good condition No. 5 of the apartment is involved in the case since 1983, sitting in the offices of their father build themselves “while others have no right to because I’m going to give just three to my son,” he had, too, the enthusiasm of youth with all of the money they earn by spending for the construction of the building the building was completed, the plaintiff Muris , however, he did not accept the price offered by Ramadan, and the plaintiff … was not there at that time, Vahit’s brothers appeared after their father’s death, and ecrimisil conditions did not occur, stating that the case was decided to be dismissed.
According to the local court, the two apartments in the building are owned by muris, and the four apartments above them are owned by the defendant and his siblings out of the case….. and ……. it was built with the contributions of, because of these contributions of the defendant to apartment 5 ….. and ……. they also settled in apartments 4 and 6, the defendant lived in the apartment subject to the lawsuit since 1983, by 1993, the murisin needed money to pay off his pension premium debts, so he collected his children and explained that he wanted to sell them to his children, who lived in their apartment first, if they did not agree, he would sell them to other people, then with the defendant ….. and ……’they lived in the apartments on different dates of the same year purchased by paying the fees, a portion of the sale price of Muris Social Security spent a portion of the premiums paid for household goods, the cost of sales is also located in a portion where the daughter of the girls from the help…… with the opening of the joint account invested in and subsequently expended twice during the marriage of the defendant as a witness in the case and defend your sisters listened to the acquisition of the benefits of having verified that the apartment is still registered in the name of the three Muris, the purpose of Muris can transfer them to a sale, the price difference between the actual value on the deed alone is not enough to accept the existence of collusion, but the price of keeping a low contribution to results from the defendant’s apartment, on the grounds that the case is dismissed.
Upon the appeal of the plaintiffs’ attorney, the decision was overturned by the Special Chamber on the grounds described in the title of the decision above.
The decision to resist was made by the local court on the grounds of the first provision, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiffs’ deputies.
Resistance to the law through the General Board of the conflict from the front of the public assignment of sales made by the defendant by the son of the legator for sale from collusive and whether it is really the heirs, the heirs according to the result to be reached here and cancellation of the deed to the plaintiff’s acceptance of the registration request, and in this context Muris the trial date and for the period between the date of death of the collection at the point to be determined whether the decision to ecrimisil are collected.
Muvazaa, which is defined as a deliberately created mismatch between the will and the declaration, is deciphered in Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 in our positive law. (18 of the Code of Obligations No. 818 of the Republic of Moldova.), which is regulated and referred to in the article “In determining and interpreting the type and content of a contract, the real and common will of the parties is taken as the basis, regardless of the words they use accidentally or to conceal their true purpose.” the provision has been included.
Accordingly, muvazaa can be defined as the agreement of the parties to decoy third parties in order to create an appearance that does not comply with their true will and does not create judgments and consequences between them.
Since Muvazaa is more related to the interpretation of the contract, it has been thoroughly studied in teaching and practice and adhered to certain rules. Both in teaching and in practice, muvazaa is divided into two groups as absolute and relative muvazaa; in absolute muvazaa, the parties do not want to take (create) any legal action, but only apparently express the will necessary for a legal action; if it is relatively successful, the parties really want to take a certain legal action, but in order to hide it, they make a statement of will to create the appearance / impression that another legal action has been established.
Whether the parties wish to create a solo appearance or to take a second secret action, the apparent (zahiri) action does not comply with the true will of the parties, so it does not, in principle, have any consequences. The fact that the seemingly successful transaction lacks any kind of legal consequences is due to the fact that the common will of the parties is on this path.
The type of muvazaa, which constitutes the subject of the case at hand and is called “muris muvazaa”, has a great place and importance in Turkish Law. Most of the Muvazaa cases are related to muris muvazaa.
Except for the general provision of the Turkish Code of Obligations just described above, no regulation on the security of muris is included in our laws. Muris muvazaası draws its source mainly from the Case Law of the Supreme Court and scientific opinions, but its main source is the Decision to Combine the Case Law of 1.4.1974 and 1/2.
The decision to merge with the case law 1.4.1974 date and numbered 1/2 “a nobody; in order to have the right to the heir to the inheritance, of immovable property registered with the land registry that you really wanted to donate the land registry in accordance with the will of the officer in front of about sales has taken place in the case described, stored, or that was violated share all the heirs apparent of the contract of sale right of inheritance of the law of obligations 18. 507 and 603 of the Civil Code, which states that the right to sue is valid for contracts, and that they can file a lawsuit on the basis of its article, arguing that it is illegal and that the secret donation agreement also lacks the form condition. it has been decided that the rights provided for by the articles will not be effective”.
On the basis of an application to amend this decision on the grounds that it has consequences that may disturb the pure sense of justice and the public conscience, the Supreme Court of Cassation of the 16.3.1990 date and 1989/1 E of the Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Case Law., 1990/2 K. in his numbered decision, he said, “…This decision was made taking into account the special conditions and requirements of society. As a matter of fact, in order to disinherit girls, especially in small rural areas, Muris makes a transfer transaction by showing the sale of his assets, which he actually wants to donate, by making an agreement with his boy, in bad faith. In addition, a man who remarries due to the death of his wife or divorce has his previous wife’s children disinherited by the influence of the next wife in order to transfer the assets that he actually wants to donate to the next children to them by showing sales. Here, the case law numbered and 1/2 day 1.4.1974 essentially the decision to merge both boys and girls inheritance rights equal to savings in the face of collusive need to in order to ensure equality among the children of Muris is removed, and this arrangement was undisputed that provides equality before the law and respond to the needs of the society is open until. There has been no reason to justify changing this style of solution.”with the explanations in the form of 1.4.1974 days and 1/2, it was decided that there is no place to change the Decision to Merge the Case Law by referring to the reasons for its adoption in Turkish Law.
the Decision to Merge the Case Law No. 1/2 of 1.4.1974 and No. 1 is related to the successful transactions made by the bequeathed person in the guarantees of his registered real estate.
In the case of Muris muvaza, the inheritor and the counterparty of the contract usually conceal the donation agreement they have made between them with the contract of sale or decease until they die. In other words, the inheritor and the counterparty have agreed on the actual security of the property. In both the apparent and hidden contracts, sincere assent is requested. However, the nature of the contract of sale or care until death is changed by the mutual agreement, and a confidential donation agreement is also drawn up. Since the nature of the contract in appearance has been completely changed, the muris mutvazaa also has the feature of “full mutvazaa”.
Muris muvazaa, like other relative (mevsuf-qualified) muvazaaas, consists of four elements.
a-Seeming Contract: excluding smuggle goods from the heirs of the deceased, the abduction of goods from them in the direction of avoid lawsuits openers objections they could do, in other words, in agreement with the other party in order to deceive them, and do not comply with the Real will not seeming to contract terms and any contract in such a way that it is called the ramifications.
b-The Purpose of Deceiving Third Parties (Heirs): From this point of view, the difference from other relative obligations is that they are made for the purpose of deceiving the heirs. In a more explicit way, Muris is the one who leaves a legacy who wants to deceive (who makes a transaction), and the one who wants to be deceived is the heir. However, it is not necessary that the third person who wants to be deceived in absolute and relative terms other than the muris agreement should be the heir.
It is enough for the goods to be smuggled at the time of the contract with Muvaza, to find an heir or heirs who want to be deceived, and to realize the purpose of deception (caste). In this case, it is clear that the heir who is the heir according to the date of death of the testator and must receive the right of inheritance from the landowner has the legal right and right to file a lawsuit after the death of the muris for the determination of the muris, standing against the muravaali transaction made on the date when he has not yet acquired the title of heir. The fact that there are no heirs at the time of the contract with Muvazaa has no effect on the right to file a muvazaa lawsuit. In fact, if an heir proves the existence of muris muvazaa at the end of an annulment and registration case filed by him due to muvazaa and ensures that this real estate is returned to terek, he is not the heir at the date of the muvazaali contract, but the heir who has earned the title of heir at the date of death of the testator has received a share of this real estate, since he is not granted the right to sue because he is not the heir at the date of the muvazaa contract, it will create an obvious contradiction, and it will not be in accordance with the logic of law.
If dec heir has divided his property among his heirs in november health, within reasonable limits, in a balanced manner, it is no longer possible to smuggle goods from the heir, to deceive them, and since he has no will, it is impossible to mention muris muvaza.
In such cases, the purpose of the deciheritor is not to smuggle goods from the heir, but to share his property between the heirs in health. For the acceptance of this apportionment, which is also defined as “equalization” in practice, the bequeiver must divide it among all the heirs and strike a balance that can be met with decency and tolerance, even if there is no complete equality in apportionment.
If the testator has only given a share to one or more of the heirs or if there is an imbalance in the apportionment that exceeds the limits of reasonable and tolerance, the element of deception will be formed, since the purpose of stealing property from the heir, not apportionment, will be considered superior. In this case, the heirs or heirs who have not received a share or have been given a small share will have the right to file a lawsuit.
In order to understand whether there is an equalization, it is necessary to listen to witnesses, request information and documents from the relevant authorities, collect evidence from all parties, compare the goods and values given to each heir with each other through an expert witness.
c- The Agreement on Decency, which Describes the Discrepancy That the Parties Voluntarily Create Between Their Statements and Their Will: The agreement on decency is a contract that changes the nature of the contract that was ostensibly concluded between the testator and the counterparty.
The Muvazaa agreement is not subject to any form conditions. It can be done orally many times as it is done in writing. In practice, it seems that the muvazaa agreement has dec been made in combination with a secret contract, or even intertwined with it. However, the fact that it is made together with the secret contract does not eliminate the fact that the muvazaa contract is a separate contract.
Both the ”party“ and the ”muris muvazaa” the existence of a muvazaa agreement is essential for the formation of a muvazaa. He/she can make the Muvazaa agreement personally or through his/her proxy who has inherited it. The fact that the testator personally made the apparent contract does not prevent him from making the muvazaa agreement through his proxy.
The Mouvazaa agreement must be concluded before the ostensible contract or at the latest at the same time as it. The contract concluded later is not this muvazaa contract, but a second contract that replaces the previous valid contract.
d-Secret Contract: The last element of the Muris agreement is the secret contract, as in all relative agreements. The bequeathed person wants to transfer his property by donation, he makes a contract in accordance with his will. However, he hides this agreement behind a contract of another nature that is not in accordance with his true will. A contract that is not in accordance with his true will, is known and disclosed as an “apparent contract”, and a contract that is in accordance with his true will, but is stored and remains confidential, is also called a “secret contract”.
The secret contract is always made in the form of a donation contract at Muris muvaza. Therefore, what is hidden from other heirs in the muris agreement is not the security of the property, but the nature of the security agreement. If there is no secret contract, there is no way to talk about the muris agreement.
At this point, since the apparent contract does not comply with the true will of the parties, the secret contract also lacks form conditions, all heirs whose right to inheritance has been violated can request the invalidity of the official contract due to muvazaa and the cancellation of the land registry.
Each heir, with or without a reserved share, may request that the voidness of the contractual agreement concluded by the testator in order to evade the goods from the inheritance be determined, that the title deed be registered in the name of the share at the rate of cancellation of the title deed if a title deed has been created based on this agreement, or that it be reinstated (reinstated) in the proportion of the share. The heir is in the third person position, since he is out of the contract with the trustee and opposes him. Although the heir is the successor (full successor) of the person who made the contract, he opposes this contract and demands its invalidity, since the heir has prevented the right of inheritance that should be transferred to him by law by making the contract of succession and has transferred all or part of it to someone else.
It seems that the will of the testator and the benefit of the heir conflict. In a way, the heir is trying to protect his legal right against the one who inherits it. He is filing a lawsuit against the will of the testator. In this respect, there is no doubt that the heir acted as a third party in the muris muvazaası case.
Of course, the inheritor has the right to freely save his property other than the reserved share in accordance with the law and to assign it to someone else as he wishes. However, if he guarantees his property in a way that does not comply with the law, it must also be recognized that the heir who has been damaged after death has the right to resist this savings and ask for its invalidity to be determined.
In other words, just as the testator has the right to transfer his property other than the reserved share in accordance with the law, the heir also has the right to resist the legal savings that the testator has illegally arranged and deprives him of the right to inherit, to request the cancellation of the assignment and registration made.
The main thing is that the estate of the testator is transferred to his heirs in the manner prescribed by law. If the testator has the right to save as he wishes on goods other than the reserved share, he must comply with the form condition provided for in the laws when making this assignment. If the shape condition is not met, the heir who will be the owner in accordance with the law has a legal right to request the cancellation of this security due to the shape deficiency.
However, by hiding the bequeathed donation agreement behind a seemingly simple contract, such as a contract of sale or care until death, he also secured the heir’s hidden share. This bad faith of the testator and the right of the counterparty in cooperation with him, based on the bad faith, cannot be protected by law.
It is sufficient that the person who will file the Muris muvazaalı lawsuit is the heir of the bequeiver of the contract with muvazaalı. The holder of the reserved share does not have to be the heir. Since the heir who filed the lawsuit is in the case of a third party, he can prove his case with all kinds of evidence.
As a matter of fact, the same principles were adopted by the General Assembly of the Law dated 16.06.2010 and dated 2010/1-295 E., 2010/333 K. it is also adopted in decision No.
It should be noted that the achievement of a healthy, fair and correct settlement of such disputes depends on the fact that the true direction of the guarantee made to the defendant, in other words, reveals the original will and purpose of the testator in a way that leaves no room for hesitation. Since it is often difficult to determine and clarify the true will and purpose, which is an internal problem and is hidden, complete collection of evidence in this direction, as well as their joint and correct evaluation, is of great importance. For this purpose, it is necessary to take advantage of such phenomena as customs and traditions of the country and region, social trends, the usual course of events, whether the testator has dec decency and reasonable reason for concluding the contract, whether the respondent has purchasing power, the difference between the sale price and the actual value at the date of the contract, the human relationship between the parties and the testator.
Considering the concrete event in the light of all these explanations; the plaintiffs and the defendant’s brother, Muris that he is the father of the parties, the plaintiff is common in children with keziban Muris their children outside of his wife, and extramarital 14.01.1976 vahit from the relationship with the father was born in 1959 in the household population recorded in the history of the population, but despite the record in the last son of his family until his death from Muris name from the environment and in the presence of hidden, on the other hand, combined with independent apartment with six apartments in total involved in the case of the House Muris, while the number of registered in the name of the entire Muris 4 independent sections on 28.12.1993 son , the subject of the case is the independent section No. 5 on 21.10.1993 to the defendant son … and the independent section No. 6 to the son on 05.02.1993. It is understood that the price indicated in the official contract on the transfer of immovable property, which he assigned to the Mustache by selling, is 10.000.000 TL, and the actual price determined as a result of the discovery made by the court is 140.000.000TL, and the property of the muris consists of these six independent parts mentioned. As it can be seen, there is a clear and extreme difference between the values, as well as a large need situation that would require the deciheritor to sell three separate real estate within the same year was not reflected in the file. In this case, taking into account the statements of plaintiff witnesses that Murisin was in a good condition in those years, did not need to sell real estate and donated the independent part of the case to the defendant, the majority of the Board concluded and concluded that the testator acted with the will to smuggle the property out of the estate and that the guarantee made was not actually a sale but a donation.
Since there is also a request for ecrimisil in the case at hand after it is understood that the guarantee made by Muris is consensual, it should also be evaluated with this aspect of the dispute.
As is well known, with adequate pay, not only in teaching both malicious and judicial decisions of the holder as set forth in zilyet can request compensation from that, the decision to merge 08.03.1950 No. 22/4 date and case law; fuzuli’s occupation of the sides to each other and cannot be likened to a lease contract with their proper that he created, that should be regarded as unjust by nature an unfair action would have to be compensated the losses due to the occupation it was emphasized that
As a matter of fact, 995 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721. in the first paragraph of the article, well-intentioned non-possessor back to what he was unfair because he is obliged to give to the right owner which have achieved or failed to achieve the damages and shall not be obliged to pay compensation in exchange for the products.
The acceptance provision, which will be established as a result of the title cancellation and registration lawsuits filed based on the legal reason of Muris muvazaa, is not constructive (constituent), but izhari (explanatory). The transactions subject to the decisions made in this way are deemed to have not been made because they are completely invalid from the date they were made, and the cancellation provision results in a retroactive effect. On the other hand, there is no way to say that the person who is a party to the transaction has good intentions. Since there is no transaction in which the party is located, the registration that occurs in this way is a corrupt registration.
In that case, given that the inheritor will be transferred to the heirs of his estate upon his death and that the heirs will be the rightful owners by the date of death, it is undoubtedly that the persons who use the property in this way will be liable for compensation (compensation for unfair occupation) since their use after the date of death will be unfair occupation.
During the negotiations at the General Meeting of the Law, the plaintiff requires the party to smuggle property from the other heirs of the murisin whether the existence of a reason can be proved, as well as the plaintiff’s witness statements heard in the file consist of abstract statements, the statements of Ayten, Ayse and Gulten, who are the sister of the parties to reveal the true will and purpose of the murisin and declare as a defendant witness, are important, as these people are in the events, as well as their interests in winning the case, considering the combination of these statements and the scope of the file, the defendant and the non-defendant brothers of the murisin, who does not have social security, who has cancer and who made treatment expenses for his wife who died in 1991, and on the other hand, the other apartments in the building whose first two floors were completed in advance .dec…. with ……’labor and have been built with the contributions, the pension was introduced in 1993, when Muris is in need of money to pay off the debts of the premium, sitting in offices and children gathered for this reason primarily, explained that wanted to sell their children, whereupon the apartments of the residence of the defendant and his brother on two different dates of the same year purchased by paying the fees, the apartments in the construction of the support due to low sales price of keeping the normal, moreover, the price is very low compared to its real value shown on the deed of the stand-alone is not sufficient for the acceptance of the phenomenon muvazaa, Muris a portion of the sale price of premium in the years following his retirement, paying off debts, household items and imam after the death of a spouse due to marry guys twice to get the Gold spent, also from the date of purchase, he married a girl returning to the house in a divorce, and their children looked at the other girls, again, the file existing in the bank records, according to the girl with open accounts in its own name as detached a portion of the money……’deposited in the joint account of the opening of la understood, carrying six separate and independent section of the Maliki Muris the purpose of the sale in the case have the ability to transfer all of them, while only showed an absence of intent sold to end the sale of all of these issues on the decision of the Local Court in the place of the opinion that it should be approved and have been proposed, although this view of the above-described reasons, had never been adopted by the majority of the board.
As such, it is necessary to comply with the decision to overturn the Special Chamber adopted by the General Assembly of the Law, while resisting the previous decision is contrary to the procedure and the law.
Therefore, the decision to resist must be overturned.
CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 for the reasons shown in the decision of the Special Chamber to overturn the decision of the deputy plaintiffs to resist the acceptance of appeals and appeals of the Special Chamber. 429 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, which is being implemented in accordance with its article. according to article 440 of the same Law, if requested, the advance fee for the appeal will be returned to the depositor. in accordance with the article, the decision was made by majority vote at the second meeting held on 21.03.2019, with the path to correction of the decision open within fifteen days from the date of notification of the decision.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here