T.C SUPREME COURT 1.Legal Department, Base: 2016/ 15630 Decision: 2020 / 798 Decision Date: 12.02.2020
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE: COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
TYPE OF CASE :
CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION
In the case dec between the parties;
The plaintiff stated that the co-heirs registered their real estate numbered 101 ada 13, 116 ada 116, 127 and 148 parcels in the name of the defendant’s son during cadastral determination, but the transaction was intended to smuggle goods from the heirs and
by claiming that they were collusive
he requested its registration in his name at the rate of inheritance share with cancellation; also
09.03.2011 Muris No. 139 on the parcel that owns immovable organized by the notary name Testaments with all of 116, 101 Island 19, 30 ada 102, 116, 133, and 140 in the name of his real estate parcel No. 1/3 of the share grandson (the defendant …’s child) and the other defendant …’e, 1/3 cut, other heirs itself with the defendant out of the case and … and …’e is injured on the grounds that the defendant will share about tenkis stored in the request were found.
Defendant …, the defendant …, the plaintiff have other immovable property and the plaintiff’s hidden share is not damaged and they have argued for the rejection of the case.
By the court, from the point of view of the defendant … due to the fact that the subject of the case and the real estate are different, from the point of view of the defendant … to the interpretation of the case; from the point of view of the defendant
“as for the concrete case, the subject of the case is 101 island 13 parcels identified without a deed and 116 island 116, 127 and 148 parcels designated in donation form in respect of immovable property dated 01.04.1974, 1/2 The Decision to Unite the Beliefs has no place of application and
TMK No. 4721 in the presence of conditions under which the claim to his consent cannot be heard. nun 560 to 571. it is clear that it can be put on a criminal case provided for in its articles. However, there is no request for criticism in the case. In these circumstances,;
while it is necessary to decide on the cancellation based on the legal reason for the failure and the rejection of the case for registration, it is not correct to establish a provision in writing with a erroneous assessment.” it was overturned on the grounds that the court decided to dismiss the case as a result of the trial conducted in accordance with the violation.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff during the term, but the report of the Examining Judge was read, and his opinion was taken. The case was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
In the decision to violate the provision complied with, the decision was made by processing as shown. Upon the refusal of the appeal appeal, which is not available at the plaintiff’s place, the APPROVAL of the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law and the grounds for the decision to overturn, written below is 25.20 TL. the receipt of the balance confirmation fee from the appellant plaintiff was decided unanimously on 12/02/2020.