T.C. SUPREME COURT
Date of Decision: 02.07.2014
TITLE CANCELLATION REGISTRATION AND COMPENSATION CASE – DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SHOWN VALUE AND THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE REAL ESTATE, THE PLAINTIFF IS WRONGFUL AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FEE WILL NOT REQUIRE JUDGMENT – THE DECENCY OF THE MISSING POWER OF ATTORNEY FEE FOR THE DEFENDANT’S BENEFIT
ABSTRACT: On the grounds that the plaintiff is wrongful in his case due to the difference between the shown value and the actual value of the real estate subject to litigation and that it will not require the decisionship fee to be ruled in favor of the defendant, the value of the lawsuit ………….. Accepted as TL ………… With the deduction of TL, the remaining ………… Defendant M. via TL it is not true that it has been ruled on an incomplete power of attorney for its benefit.
(1136 P. K. m. 166)
Case and Decision: At the end of the decommissioning, registration and compensation case between the parties, the decision made by the local court regarding the partial acceptance of the case was taken by the defendant M. acting, defendants K. and F. although the case was appealed by the deputy within the legal period, the file was examined, the report of the Examining Judge was read, the explanations were listened to, and the case was discussed and considered as necessary;
The case is related to the cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the legal reason for the abuse of the power of attorney, or the request for compensation, and as a result of the research and examination conducted by the court, the plaintiff, K. B. against K.due to the demands of tan, F. B. the case against him was dismissed due to the fact that he was deprived of the matter due to payment during the trial, and therefore K. in the absence of a decision on the power of attorney fee in his favor; defendant M. in terms of his demands on F. against, and M. the case filed against him regarding the price of 1/3 apartment is rejected because it is not fixed; defendant M.there is no inaccuracy in the fact that it was decided to partially accept the case for cancellation of the land registry and registration in terms of other apartments requested from the . Defendant K.’s all, defendant M.’s other appeals are rejected, objections are not in place.
Defendant F.since it is understood that the appeal was waived, F.refusal of the appeal due to the waiver of the request.
However, the acting plaintiff, in the sum of the value of the apartments and the amount of compensation requested from the defendants by the disclosure petition, amounts to 1,000,000.-According to the TL value statement, the fee has been completed at this value, the 292 ada 20 parcels included in the scope of acceptance are Block A 25, Block A 98, Block B 37 with all of the independent sections of Block B 32, independent section 53/71 the total value of the share is 409.000.00.-Defendant K, who was rejected due to renunciation because payment was made during the trial with TL.the requested price of 1 apartment is 67.500.00.-1,000,000.00, which is the case value of the total amount of compensation in TL.-The amount deducted from TL and the remaining amount, the defendants K. and M. the value to be determined by proportioning the claims against the defendant M. while the proxy fee should be decided in his favor, if the value is shown higher in the lawsuit petition, the value of the case is 494.500,00 on the grounds that the plaintiff is wrongful in his case due to the difference between the shown value and the actual value of the real estate subject to the lawsuit and will not require a proxy fee dec in favor of the defendant.-409.000, which was accepted as TL and included in the scope of acceptance.-The remainder with a deduction of TL 85.000.00.TL via defendant M. it is not true that it has been ruled on an incomplete power of attorney for its benefit.
Defendant M. the appeal of the deputy to this effect is pending. With its adoption, the provision is subject to the described reason (provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100.article 428 of HUMK No. 1086 (by sending). a unanimous decision was made on 02.07.2014 to cancel it in accordance with the article and return the advance payment received to the appellant.