T.C. SUPREME COURT
Date of Decision: 10.09.2016
CASE OF CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS – THERE IS NO INACCURACY IN THE DISCRETION OF THE EVIDENCE ON THE LEGAL AND JURIDICAL GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PROVISION IS BASED – APPROVAL OF THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: In the case related to the cancellation and registration of the title deed, there was no inaccuracy in the content of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and juridical grounds on which the judgment is based, and the discretion of the evidence. It has been decided to approve the provision.
(1086 P. K. m. 436) (6100 pp. K. Late. m. 3)
Case and Decision: In a case between the parties dec;
The plaintiff, No. 12 in the immovable island parcel 512 (8/112) to sell its share of the defendant ……’I need that on 15/08/2003 and agencies appoint a proxy in the history of 14/06/2004 on position, although acting on 17/06/2004 azilname has been communicated to the other conveyed by sale of shares to the defendant if it is by proxy of the sales price has been paid, the defendant and by the hands of saying that they are acting in cooperation with the cancellation of the deed registered in the name of, if not asked to decide on is the collection of the sales price.
The defendant …, real estate by proxy 10,000-TL sold to the other defendant, the plaintiff is given as the sales price 7.000 TL to the execution of a bond in the amount of costs to the plaintiff’s attorney by putting 9.000 TL that was paid, the plaintiff’s attorney when edited from the hands of the 2,000-TL paid a total of 11.000 TL was paid to the plaintiff as the sales price of which, except for the sale of the immovable that is not exchanged any money with the plaintiff, the defendant, for sale on the ad, the apartment is under construction and rough in a derelict state at the end of 2003 9.500 TL agreed with the defendant to buy …, 4.500 TL as the ornament, 5.000 TL 10/04/2004-dated checks was paid for by, but other drag themselves about the ownership of the defendant, that it is possible to transfer on 04/08/2004 following the transfer of the immovable 17.000 TL spending, goodwill and other agencies in collusion with the respondent and that it is not possible to know whether the act has been relieved, by specifying that he is the real victim argued for a dismissal.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proven.
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff during the time and at the request of the hearing, but the hearing was rejected at the prompt value and the Examiner’s report was read and his opinion was taken. The case was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
Conclusion: The contents of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and juridical justification on which the judgment is based, the absence of an error in the discretion of the evidence and, in particular, the allegation of abuse of power of attorney cannot be proven, the security is at a price, the plaintiff collects the price through the enforcement channel, essentially this issue ….. Criminal Court of First Instance 2005/1132 E. at the session of the numbered case dated 03/05/2006, it was found that the plaintiff also accepted and there was no error in establishing the provision as written; the plaintiff’s appeal is not in place. Approval of the provision that is in accordance with the procedure and law with a refusal, written below 4.00.-The receipt of the TL balance approval fee from the appellant was decided unanimously on 10.05.2016.