8. Law Department 2019/60 E. , 2021/2391 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
CASE TYPE : Ecrimisil
At the end of the trial between the parties in the case described above, the Court decided to partially accept the case, and after the verdict was appealed by the defendant’s dec, the Apartment’s file was examined and considered necessary.
Decision
The plaintiff’s deputy requested and sued for a decision on compensation by informing the proxy and the defendant that they are the joint owners of the real estate subject to the lawsuit, but the defendant has not paid the rental price that falls on the proxy’s share.
The defendant’s deputy defended the rejection of the case.
The court decided to partially accept the case, and the decision was appealed by the defendant’s deputy.
The case is related to the decriminalization request between the stakeholders.
1. Since the contents of the file, the case documents and the trial minutes, the available evidence were decided by the Court at its discretion and there were no inaccuracies in the case, the defendant’s attorney’s other appeals that fell outside the scope of the following paragraph were not considered in place.
2. As for the other appeals of the defendant’s attorney; As is known, a stakeholder who cannot use real estate in shared ownership may always ask other stakeholders or stakeholders who are obstacles to prevent and/or require compensation for their share.
As a rule, stakeholders cannot ask each other for compensation unless they are banned. The realization of the condition of prohibition from intifada also depends on the fact that the claimant stakeholder’s desire to take advantage of the real estate or income subject to the lawsuit has been notified to the respondent stakeholder before the requested period of ecrimisil. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule that have arisen with established judicial practice. These; immovable state property to be the subject of the case, the adequate payment is requested immovable (vineyards, orchards, such as giving or natural product (business, residential etc) to be obtained and legal fruition rented places, joint stakeholders in the real estate and The Fellowship of others who occupied this whole place to the denial of claims, the agreement between stakeholders for the benefit of all stakeholders as a result of use of immovable joint, or the presence of specific departments, other stakeholders earlier this against immovable by the plaintiff relating to the Prevention of elatma, elimination of partnership, ecrimisil and similar lawsuits are filed or enforcement proceedings have been made. In addition, as for the product brought by real estate, the products that are formed spontaneously; mown grass, collected nuts, tea, or an enterprise established by muris, or businesses that generate income on their own, there is no need to create a condition that prevents intifada if they are occupied.
Therefore, the realization of the condition of prohibition from intifada will be sought with the exceptions of the real estate subject to the case and the claim that the condition of prohibition from intifada has been realized can be proved with any evidence.
Although in the concrete case, the defendant’s request to have a witness heard was rejected by the court with the acceptance that the condition for the prohibition of intifada occurred as a result of the case for the elimination of the partnership that was filed before the current case; the aforementioned Ankara 3.When the case file No. 2010/8121 on the elimination of partnership of the Magistrate’s Court was examined, it was seen that the case was filed by the defendant in the case at hand and the other stakeholders who were out of the case, and the plaintiff at hand was included as the defendant in the elimination of partnership case.
Less of the above-mentioned principles and the content of the file, according to the partnership by the parties that the plaintiff be opened from the direction of the elimination of the plaintiff’s condition will perform barred from the case of the Intifada; the answer to the suit case and in Court, the witness based on the evidence, the parties were given time to present a list of witnesses after the intifada to be achieved by determining as to whether the condition is barred from should be decided according to the result; and in justification of the outcome in writing with the unprecedented right to go yanilgili, provision had therefore corruption.
CONCLUSION : Acceptance of the defendant’s deputy’s appeals for the reasons described in paragraph (2), rejection of other appeals for the reasons described in paragraph (1), and Temporary 3 of HMK No. 6100 of the provision. according to Article 428 of the Code No. 1086. in accordance with article 440/III-1, 2, 3 and 4 of the HUMK. in accordance with the paragraphs, the decision against the ad was unanimously decided on 17.03.2021 that the correction path was closed, and the refund of the advance fee to the appellant upon request was returned on 17.03.2021