T.C SUPREME COURT 5.Law Department Base: 2019/2987 Decision: 2020/2936 Decision Date: 20.02.2020
ABSTRACT: Since it is understood that the notarial notices made by the heirs are considered invalid, it is not considered that the decision on the acceptance of the case should be made by this defendant, considering that the expropriation process has been finalized by the defendant, although it is not true; since the elimination of this misconception does not require a retrial, the verdict had to be corrected and upheld.
(2942 P. K. m. 17)
Dec 17 of the Expropriation Law between the Parties.at the end of the trial for the case of cancellation and registration of title deeds based on the article: the examination of the above-mentioned written decision on the rejection of the case by the Supreme Court was requested by the petitioner’s administrative deputy, but the documents in the file were read and the dispute was discussed and considered as necessary after the dispute was understood:
The case is part of Article 17 of the Expropriation Law.it is related to the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the article.
The judgment was established by conducting an examination and processing in accordance with the decision on the violation complied with by the court; the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s administrative deputy.
The other appeals of the plaintiff’s administrative deputy, which are outside the following paragraph, are not in place because they relate to the aspects that are finalized by overturning the objections. But;
The respondent party shall notify the defendant about the immovable property that is requested to be registered … 7. 2010/511 E of the Court of First Instance., 2013/177 K. 2017/6461 E of our Department of compensation based on confiscation without expropriation filed in its numbered file., 2018/10342 K. as a result of the correction review of the decision made in the numbered file, it became clear that the notarial notices made by the heirs of maliki muris … with a 1/4 share of the real estate subject to litigation are considered invalid, it is not considered that the decision should be made to accept the case from the defendant’s side, considering that the expropriation process has been completed from the defendant’s side,
Although it is not true; since the elimination of this misconception does not require a retrial,
The reasoned decision with the terms of Paragraph (1) is located in subparagraph (denial of plaintiff’s trial counsel) from the provisions of the phrase to be removed, instead of (partial acceptance of the case with … With … District … District, in Muris parcel No. 116 58 immovable name is …’s the heir to a 1/4 share from the defendant …’e’s share with the cancellation of the Treasury in the name of the land registry and the registration of the other defendants filed from the denial of the direction of the sentence to be written to,
The provision was thus CORRECTED and APPROVED by a unanimous decision on 20.02.2020.