1. Legal Department 2020/3148 E. , 2020/5869 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
At the end of the decisiveness and registration case between the parties, the decision made by the local court regarding the rejection of the case was appealed by the plaintiffs of the original and combined case within the legal period, but the file was examined, the report of the Examining Judge … was read, the explanations were listened to, and the necessary discussion and consideration was considered;
-DECISION-
The case concerns the request for cancellation of the title deed-registration based on the legal reason of corrupt registration.
Noble and the combined case of the plaintiff; defendant muhsurler about those who left the remaining three parts … a common heritage immovable and subsequent elimination from the opening sales of the partnership to report the file the actual addresses, but the operations themselves from undue notice from the parcels 3 and No. 5 by buying from auction tasinmazar conceal and what you spent on them, thus claiming that land records were provided by the cancellation of the registration of a corrupt nature, all in the name of the heirs are asked to decide on the registration.
The defendants stated that the transactions were duly and valid and defended the rejection of the case.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the liquidation of the partnership and the transactions in the sales files were duly made, the plaintiffs received the money in their shares without notice, and the case filed four years later could not be considered in good faith. From the contents of the file and the evidence collected:
…) The subject of the lawsuit is parcels 3 and 5, as well as the 1996/590 Es, when the parties to the non-lawsuit parcel 97 … were registered in the name of the inheritor of the Seals, while the other heirs of the heirs … were filed by showing the defendant.s. as a result of the case on the elimination of the partnership, it was decided to eliminate the partnership through the sale of real estate numbered 3, 5 and 97 parcels(26.11.1996), where the address of all parties in the case is shown as the same address;
2) the sale of the parcels 3 and No. 5 Parselle given based on the decision of the sale of the improper disposal Suyu numbered dated sales in the second tender file in the desired where and 2000/9 02.12.2002 the defendants of the case at hand …, tender, and … the names …/4 each provided with a share of land registration, and sales all in the file of the address of the partnership in the case of the elimination of the heirs at the same address shown; subsequently, subjected to the two parcels parcels occur on many of the aforementioned zoning application;
3) The 2003/208 Es of the heirs …(the plaintiff of the actual case at hand) and … against the defendants on 11.04.2003.s. they filed a lawsuit for the termination of the tender, at the end of the trial, the case was dismissed on the grounds that “the announcement made in the newspaper will replace the notification;
4) From the heirs … by c.upon complaint to the prosecutor’s office, the indictments dated 09.04.2003 and 16.05.2003 were filed against the defendants … …. 2004/373 es in the Criminal Court of Felony.s. at the end of the public trial and trial, the defendants … and … were sentenced to be punished for “forgery of an official document” because they declared a false address and caused the notification document to be falsified and edited contrary to the truth(12.10.2006); on appeal of the file, the Supreme Court 11. According to the Criminal Department, “the defendants in the indictments ‘7201 p. They were asked to be punished for ‘opposition to the Notification Law’, no case was opened for forgery in the official document, 7201 p. In terms of the crime of opposition to the Notification Law, it was also decided to drop the public case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired”(13.09.2012);
5) On 03.04.2003 of the … with … from the heirs … ….. 2003/173 Es, which they filed in the Magistrate’s Court.s. 1996/590 Es with the case of restitution of the proceedings.s. “… in a concrete case, the defendants fraudulently reported their commercial business addresses as the defendant’s addresses in violation of the truth, even though they knew the addresses of the plaintiffs in the position of the defendants in the mentioned partnership removal case and subsequent sales file, the notices were made to their business addresses, the same address in the sales file was fraudulently made to the defendant’s addresses, the notices were made to their business addresses, the notices were made to the same address, the plaintiffs were unaware of the case for the liquidation of the partnership and the sales file, the sale of real estate was fraudulently made on behalf of the defendants, the provision was made for the defendants to be punished for forgery in the official document due to these actions, the defendants intentionally committed a fraudulent act by providing the wrong address, the defendants took a 375 HMK. article….in accordance with paragraph h of paragraph h, it is understood that the defendants victimized the plaintiffs by making an irregular notification by committing fraudulent behavior, taking into account that “the party decided in favor of h) committed fraudulent behavior that influenced the decision”, HMK. the Court of Cassation decided to accept the request for the extradition of the trial on the grounds that “this issue, in which the element of cheating occurred, which is one of the reasons for the extradition of the trial, is the reason for the extradition of the trial …”, the decision was made by the Supreme Court …. It is understood that it was approved by the Legal Department and finalized on 07.01.2020.
It should be noted immediately that 134 of the Executive Bankruptcy Code(IIK). in accordance with the provision of the article, termination of a forced tender by a bet may be requested for irregularities, as well as there is no legal obstacle to filing a lawsuit for cancellation and registration of a title deed, arguing that the registration based on the property acquired as a result of the tender is corrupt.
On the other hand, IIK’s 18. enforcement proceedings in accordance with the article are subject to a simple procedure. 134 of the same law. in the second paragraph of article 226 of the Code of Obligations of termination of the tender. including the reasons written in the article, the executive court may be asked for a complaint within seven days from the tender date, and the relevant persons will be deemed to have committed corruption in the transactions that took place no later than the tender day.
As it can be seen, the aforementioned provisions define terminations that are limited to enforcement law, are subject to simple trial, and can be requested from the enforcement court through a complaint. In this context, it should be accepted that an investigation and evaluation that remains in this context cannot indicate the existence or absence of a reason that constitutes a malady of the right of ownership in the face of the principle of illity in the formation of land registry records; in other words, the arbitrariness of rejecting requests to terminate the tender will not fundamentally eliminate the cause of corrupt registration.
On the other hand, the principles and facts mentioned above, in particular … …. 2004/373 Es of the High Criminal Court.s. the contents of the case file and … …. 2003/173 Es, which was heard in the Magistrate’s Court.s. the retrial in the case of events identified and are considered together when the final material, the partnership must file both sales and the elimination of the defendants, the plaintiff despite knowing the addresses of fraudulent reporting the truth as contrary to its own commercial business addresses, business addresses, it is understood that achieves results by having their notification.
In that case, the elimination of the sale of immovable property by fraudulent means a partnership basis in the case of the visibility of the Proceedings of the party organization, which is one of the conditions has not been duly provided in the file and the same tricky situation in the face of the continuation of sales, the partnership files with the appropriate decisions and processes the registration process and the elimination of sales is a causal link between the decision and process open and current mentioned because we cannot talk about a legal consequence of the registration of the corrupt nature and based on them will have created will carry without a doubt that it is.
In addition, the fact that plaintiffs receive the amounts falling on their shares after the sale of real estate without specifying them in advance also has no effect on the outcome.
As a result, while the acceptance of both cases should be decided, it is incorrect to reject them with a wrong assessment.
By accepting the appeals of the plaintiffs of the original and merged case on the spot, the provision (provisional Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100. article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086. in accordance with the article, it was unanimously decided on 10/11/2020 that the fee received in advance would be returned to the appellant.
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clicking here