T.C SUPREME COURT 1.Department of Law, Base: 2019/3518 Decision: 2020/762 Decision Date: 10.02.2020
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT : …DISTRICT COURT 1. law office
TYPE OF CASE :
LAND>
CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION
In the case of decoupling between the parties;
In the original and combined case, the plaintiffs, their heirs … and … the subject of the lawsuit in which they are stakeholders 1753 island 1 is the independent part No. 2 contained in parcel 2, which is the defendant’s sons, by selling the collateral, the collateral is intended to smuggle goods from the heirs, free of charge and
by claiming that they were collusive
registration of land registry
with its cancellation, they requested registration in their names at the rate of inheritance shares.
The defendant took care of the bedridden parents of mirasbirakan, made a lot of expenses as treatment expenses, also paid the debts of the father of mirasbirakan to the environment, when he could not afford the treatment costs
muris defended the rejection of the case by stating that his father wanted the real estate to be sold, that he bought the real estate for this reason, and that the sale was real.
By the Court of First instance, temlikin
it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that it was not successful; the application for appeal of the plaintiffs’ attorney …District Court of Justice 1. 353/1 of HMK No. 6100 by the Legal Department.b.it was rejected on the basis of Article 1.
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiffs during the term; The report of the Examining Judge was read, and his opinion was taken. The case was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
-DECISION-
According to the contents of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and juridical grounds on which the judgment is based, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence; APPROVAL of the decision in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting the plaintiffs’ appeal that is not in place, written below 10.00. It was unanimously decided on 10.02.2020 that the TL balance approval fee should be taken from the appellant plaintiffs.
