T.C. SUPREME COURT
Base : 2016/10495
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
CASE OF COMPENSATION – CLAIMANT’S CLAIM FOR RECEIVABLES BASED ON THE LEGAL REASON OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT – DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL COURTS – THE PROVISION IS BROKEN
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s request is TMK’s.. .it is not within the scope of the claim for “material compensation based on the breakdown of the engagement” regulated in the article, but it is related to the claim for receivables based on the legal reason of unjustified enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancée, but also against the heirs of the real estate owner who is the subject of the lawsuit, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts. As such, the court should enter into the merits of the work and make a decision in accordance with the result, while otherwise making a decision on dismissal is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires overturning.
(6098 P. K. m. 120) (6100 p. K. m. 114)
Case and Decision: After the decision to accept the appeal petition was made, the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary after the decision was made to dismiss the claimant’s petition by the plaintiff’s deputy within the period of the decision made by the court as a result of the trial of the receivables case between the parties due to the decommissioning of the case:
The plaintiff’s attorney filed a petition; he asked his client and the defendants … that they were engaged, that the parties would live together when they got married….other defendants the plaintiff by the defendant with his mother and siblings, who have n …’e allocation, client premises of the plaintiff and his client on April these are some useful while you move the corruption of mandatory expenses from the defendant the cost of repairs, although you have requested from your client any payment was not made the subject matter of the case because all of the defendants immovable is registered in the name of the heirs of the … …Muris Muris noting that the respondent was cited as, he requested and sued that the defendants be jointly and severally decided on the collection of TL 20,473.00, which is the cost of beneficial and mandatory expenses incurred for the relocation, together with the legal interest that will be processed from the date of the lawsuit.
Attorney for the defendants in the petition and answer; to take prompt and the case is related to the deterioration of April, that belongs to the Family Court of the task of looking into the case and in this case, however, the defendant engaged the plaintiff of animosity that can be piped with…, the plaintiff paid the entire cost of the ethics of the cost of the claim by the client has asked for a dismissal by specifying the.
The court decided to dismiss the case in accordance with Article HMK 115/2 by sending article 114/1-c to HMK 114 on grounds of non-duty, on the grounds that the costs requested by the plaintiff from the defendants are expenses arising from the engagement agreement, the expenses subject to the lawsuit are based on the legal reason for the breakdown of the engagement agreement, and the duty to look at this case belongs to the Family Court, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In a concrete case the plaintiff, the defendant during the period of their engagement with the defendant …’s allocated for the family to reside after marriage, and the deed to the defendants premises which are registered in the name Muris useful and mandatory charges made part of the move, citing the corruption of the engagement of these costs that increase the value of the immovable with the refund was prompt.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s request is in accordance with Article 120 of the TMK. it is not within the scope of the claim for “material compensation based on the breakdown of the engagement” regulated in the article, but it is related to the claim for receivables based on the legal reason of unjustified enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancée, but also against the heirs of the real estate owner who is the subject of the lawsuit, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts.
As such, it is necessary to enter the merits of the work by the court and make an appropriate decision as a result, while issuing a decision on dismissal in writing is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires overturning.
Conclusion: Without regard to the principles described above, the provision in writing is invalid, the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the decision has been made by acceptance.nun 428.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 that it would be OVERTURNED and that the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the appellant upon request.