T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
2.law office
Base: 2003/11723
Decision: 2004/732
Date of Decision: 22.01.2004
REVOCATION OF INHERITANCE – IF THE RENUNCIATION AGREEMENT IS URGENT, IT WILL ALSO BE GRANTED TO THE FURU, UNLESS ITS CALIPHATE IS REQUIRED – THE TITLE OF HEIR – THE TRANSITION OF INHERITANCE AND INHERITANCE
ABSTRACT: It is the subsoy of the renouncing spouse to be the one who inherits. Because the rule of succession applies only to the heirs of the group. Then the spouse who survived the concrete event and renounced the inheritance without compensation must have children from another spouse B. and C. since the heirs of the bequeathed M could not be the heirs, these children involved in the case should not have been given a share of the inheritance from Mustafa, but it should have been given and the provision should have been made in writing.
(4721 Pp. K. m. 475) (4722 Pp. K. m. 17)
Lawsuit: At the end of the trial between the parties, the decision issued by the local court was requested to be examined by the execution of the appeal by murafaa, and all the papers in the file were read and discussed and considered as dec:
Decision: The succession and the passage of the inheritance are determined in accordance with the provisions in force on the date of the death of the testator. (4722 Pp.K. md.17)
Virgo and Crocus cannot benefit from the surviving spouse’s contract of waiver of unrequited inheritance made with the testator, since their children who are not of the blood and lineage of the testator from the first wife of this spouse are not the heirs of Virgo and Crocus. Anyone who renounces it loses the title of heir. If the renunciation agreement is urgent, it will also apply to the person who renounces it, unless his caliphate is required. (TKM. md. 475)
In the article, the regulated condition (subsoy) is the subsoy that the renouncing spouse is the one who bequeathed the inheritance. Because the rule of succession applies only to the heirs of the group. Survivors who have given no response to concrete cases in real estate, then the spouse and the other spouse cannot ears and his heirs are children from the legator Crocus involved in the case should be given to the children to be given a share of the inheritance from Teddy and in written form to overturn the establishment of the provision when required.
Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 22.01.2004 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons described, that the power of attorney fee of 375.000.000 pounds appreciated for the hearing should be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, and that the advance fee of the appeal should be returned to the depositor.
