T.C. Supreme Court 23. Law Department Base No:2015/4182, Decision No:2016/1018, K. Date:22.2.2016
At the end of the trial of the complaint on the order line between the parties, complaints are made within the period of the provision issued for the acceptance of the complaint for reasons written in the dec A.P and R.M.Upon appeal by the A deputies, the file was examined, and it was discussed and considered as necessary.
– K A R A R –
The complainant’s deputy is the debtor D of his client.N.E about Istanbul 19. 2011/12471 E of the Executive Directorate. he initiated enforcement proceedings from his numbered file, placed a lien on the title deed of the immovable property placed on the sale price and queue line, and the immovable property was placed on Istanbul 19. 2007/3331 E of the Executive Directorate. the tender has been made from the numbered execution file, Istanbul 23. 2007/7092 E of the Executive Directorate. in the numbered file, the queue ruler has been edited, the queue ruler has been notified on 26.09.2013, Istanbul Anatolia 2, which is included in the queue ruler. 2005/7415 and 7416 E of the Executive Directorate. D of the debtor of the numbered execution files.N.E), real estate from these files is not foreclosed on the land registry, they should not be included in the queue chart, the tracking file that is a creditor of the Zeytinburnu Tax Office Directorate is included twice in the queue chart, the tracking path in many execution files taken in the queue chart, payment order notification dates, completion dates are not included, these issues are clearly against the law, these inconsistencies affect the order of other creditors, so the queue chart 14. he claimed that all creditors who were in the order before his client, who were given a place in the queue, objected to the order, and demanded the cancellation of the queue ruler.
S who complain.E.Y, arguing that the complainant does not have the title of creditor and debtor in the sales file, he does not have the right and authority to complain to the queue ruler, complaints to the queue ruler can be directed to creditors who have allocated shares to him in the queue ruler, creditors who have not allocated shares have no legal interest in complaining, he asked for the complaint to be dismissed. The complaint was filed by T.Deputy E has requested the rejection of the complaint, arguing that the complainant is not a party to the enforcement file and has no right to appeal to the queue line.
Complainant R.M.A deputy, Istanbul 17. 2013/252 E of the Court of First Instance. he asked for the rejection of the complaint, arguing that the queue line will disappear completely according to the court’s result, pending the outcome of the title cancellation case filed in his numbered file.According to the scope of the expert report adopted by the court, the claim, the defense and the entire file, the order line was notified to the complainant’s deputy on 26.09.2013, the complaint filed on 01.10.2013 was within the period of Istanbul Anadolu 2, which is included in the land registry of real estate. 2005/7415 and 7416 E of the Executive Directorate. istanbul 24 with numbered execution files. 2011/20120 E of the Executive Directorate. from the examination of the numbered execution files, the debtors of these files are asked to D.N.Not E M.D.A is the debtor of the immovable property in the foreclosure proceedings sent from these files.D.If it is registered in the name of A, it is desirable to place a lien on the immovable property that has been sold D.N.Considering that the title deed is a registered share in the number of 594 islands, 11 parcels, Sariyer district, Buyukdere District, Istanbul Anadolu 2, which belongs to E, is registered in the province of Istanbul. 2005/7415 and 7416 E of the Executive Directorate. istanbul 24 with numbered execution files. 2011/20120 E of the Executive Directorate. the numbered execution file should not be included in the order chart, the complainant’s complaint about it is justified, the IIK sent to the file is 100. according to article D, the information owed by the Zeytinburnu Tax Office is from the information.N.Since the conditions of participation in the foreclosure will be evaluated according to this information, the cancellation of the order schedule dated 06.09.2013 will be required to complete these deficiencies, the owner of the real estate subject to apportionment is the debtor Nazli Derya Ersin, who is not the creditor of R.M.A and A.Since P is also shown in the sequence chart, it is incorrect to direct hostility to them, the first final foreclosure on the immovable property subject to apportionment of the sale price is Istanbul 23. 2007/7092 E of the Executive Directorate. 21 of the Law No. 6183 on foreclosure placed from this file, which is a lien placed from file No. 6183. according to the article, the foreclosure of the Directorate of the Zeytinburnu Tax Office will be attended by the complaining creditor, although it is based on the announcement that this will be received by Istanbul 23. 2007/7092 E of the Executive Directorate. considering that the follow-up from the numbered file began on 30.03.2007 and the file that was the subject of the follow-up was opened on 24.08.2007 after this follow-up, IIK’s 100. in accordance with the article, it was stated that there were no conditions for participation, the queue ruler should be reorganized by correcting the deficiencies submitted, and with the acceptance of the complaint, it was decided to cancel the queue ruler dated 06.09.2013. The decision was taken by the complainants A.P and R. attorneyM.A deputy appealed.The complaint is related to the queue on the queue ruler. 142/1 of the IIK. according to the provision of the article, “Within seven days from the notification of the image of the ruler, each creditor may appeal against the ruler’s action by filing a lawsuit against the relevant persons in the district court where the proceedings are conducted.” The phrase “stakeholders” contained in the aforementioned provision refers, as a rule, not to the debtor, but to creditors who are in turn before the complaining creditor and for whom a share has been allocated. As a rule, the complaint should be directed to creditors who have priority in the order line according to the complainant or who participate in the foreclosure to the same extent, to creditors who have reserved a share with other narration and who will be affected by the outcome of the complaint.
From the scope of the file, the subject of the complaint is the R.M.Anatolia, where A is a creditor, 2. 2005/7415 E of the Executive Directorate. , 7416 e. A. Complaints are made with numbered follow-up filesIstanbul, where P is a creditor, 24. 2011/20120 E of the Executive Directorate. it is understood that no share has been allocated to the numbered files, and there is no legal benefit for the complainant to file a complaint against the named ones. In this case, the court considers that the complaint against the named complainants should be filed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 114/1-h and 115/2 of the HMK. in accordance with the articles, a decision should be made to dismiss the claim for lack of a condition, while the merits of the dispute were examined and the provision was not correct to include those who were the said complainants.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, the complainants A.P and Reyhan Mure Aşansu deputies decided unanimously on 22.02.2016 to OVERTURN the ruling for the benefit of the aforementioned complainants with the acceptance of appeals, to refund the fees received in advance to the appellants on request, within 10 days from the notification of the decision, the way to correct the decision was open, on 22.02.2016.
