Republic of Turkey
Supreme Court of Appeals
Law Division
2015/8953
2015/13935
September 10, 2015
Articles 19, 20 of Law No. 2918
CASE: Following the trial conducted by the court in the case concerning the determination and registration of vehicle ownership between the parties, the judgment rendered in partial acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendant F.K. within the prescribed time limit; after deciding to accept the appeal petition, the documents in the file were read and considered:
DECISION: The plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition; The defendants’ father, Yunus, and his other brother, Mehmet, jointly conducted agricultural activities on the immovable properties inherited from their ancestors in Avşar village, as well as commercial activities in the iron and steel industry in Karabük, as uncle, nephew, and brother. Yunus conducted the agricultural activities in the village on a sharecropping basis. They decided to purchase a tractor necessary for these activities, and subsequently, in 1998, they jointly purchased the tractor, which is the subject of the dissolution of joint ownership in the movable property case under the Civil Court of Peace’s 2010/78 case number. They registered the tractor in Yunus’s name and subsequently drew up a joint ownership protocol for the tractor. After Yunus’s death, they intervened in the lawsuit for the dissolution of joint ownership among his heirs. They were given time to file a lawsuit for the determination of ownership in the said case. Therefore, they requested the cancellation of the registration of the tractor with license plate number 19…272 in Yunus’s name and its transfer to the joint ownership of their client and the other partners, Mehmet and Y.K., and their heirs, as stated in the agreement. The plaintiff requested that the court determine that the property was owned and register it in their names.
In the response submitted by the defendant Fatma’s attorney, it was argued that although the plaintiff’s attorney claimed ownership, the partnership was invalid and void because the signatures of Y.K. and the council of elders were missing from the partnership protocol dated October 26, 1998, and the signature of M.K., who was listed as a partner, were also missing. Furthermore, the attorney argued that if there was a claim of ownership, M.K.’s heirs should have filed a lawsuit jointly or separately. Therefore, the attorney requested the dismissal of the unjustly filed lawsuit on its merits.
The court determined that the parties were siblings, had previously made an agreement protocol between them with a simple promissory note, and according to this protocol, they jointly purchased a tractor. They registered this tractor in the name of the defendants’ deceased relative for ease of official procedures, but the plaintiff also had a 1/3 share in the tractor. Therefore, the court partially accepted the lawsuit and ordered the registration of the tractor in the name of Y.K. at the Traffic Registration Branch Directorate in Kargı District, Çorum Province. The court ruled to cancel the ownership registration of the vehicle with license plate number 19…272 registered in the name of Y.K., and to register it in the name of Y.K. with a 1/3 share and a 2/3 share. The defendant, Fatma, appealed the decision.
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence supporting the decision, the legal grounds, and especially the lack of any error in the assessment of the evidence, the defendant’s other appeals are unfounded.
The registration decision is an administrative decision, and the court cannot compel the administration to make a decision regarding registration. Although the plaintiff’s attorney requested registration along with the determination of ownership of the tractor in the lawsuit, the court should have only decided on the determination of ownership of the tractor; its decision to also order registration along with the determination of ownership is deemed incorrect and necessitates reversal.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, establishing a judgment in writing without considering the principles explained above is incorrect, and the appeals are justified for these reasons. Accordingly, the judgment is REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the advance appeal fee shall be returned to the appellant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on September 10, 2015.