T.C. SUPREME
8.law office
Main: 2014/506
Decision: 2014/18999
Date of decision: 23.10.2014
THE CASE OF DETERMINING THE CONTENT BELONGING – IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SELL THE CONTENT SEPARATELY FROM THE FLOOR OF THE REAL ESTATE – THE OWNER OF THE CONTENT ON THE RATIO OF THE SHARE OF THE BUYER OF THE SHARE OF THE REAL ESTATE SUPPLY IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BREAK THE PROVISION
ABSTRACT: It is not possible to sell the memorandum separately from the floor of the real estate (supply). As it happens, in terms of the peach trees of the relevant nature, the plaintiff M.. A.. A..since the seller has purchased and used this part and has inherited the right of its seller, an acceptance decision should be made in this regard, while a decision to reject it was not considered correct.
(6100 P. K. m. 26) (1086 P. K. m. 74) (4721 P. K. m. 684, 688, 718)
Case: Sh.. A.. with A.. A.. and their clients, the plaintiffs in the merged file are M.. O.. the Court of Cassation examined the decision No. 353/244 of 19.07.2013 issued by the Buldan Court of First Instance regarding the partial acceptance and partial rejection of the case to determine the various belonging between them, but the defendant was requested by the plaintiff’s deputy during the dec file in the merged file; the file was examined, it was considered necessary:
The decision: The plaintiff’s deputy summarizes the case in the petition; parcel No. 352 case from the magistrate’s court found the partnership for the elimination of immovable 2011/263 Main numbered opened the case on file in the land and made a part of the costs as part of the link by which the specified proxy, high-bond system planted, 500 meters, irrigation installations that were laid, High system costs (concrete poles, wire, t iron, labor and expenses) which are met by the attorney and the current value detected by an expert of the question by explaining that muhdesat wanted to be.
The defendant-the plaintiff of the merged case is M.. O.. in the proxy lawsuit petition; The case was filed through the file numbered 2011/263 of the Buldan Magistrate’s Court to resolve the partnership of the real estate numbered 352 parcels, the trustee established a high bond on his own inheritance share, the defendant F during the trial.. K..explaining that it is based on the peach trees in the part that it actually uses, it has requested that it be decided to determine that the peach trees and high system bond on the immovable property and the beneficial costs belong to the trustee. In his statement at the trial session in terms of the main case, he argued that the case should be dismissed.
Defendant S.. O.. and R.. O.. in their statements at the trial session, they defended the rejection of both cases by explaining that the plaintiff had removed the bond left by Şahin’s father and made a new bond, and the plaintiff Mehmet Ali had turned the empty field into a bond.
Defendant M.. A..; plaintiff Inc.. A..that the bond was established 20 years ago on the place in question of the case, and that the plaintiff also owned his own share.., the plaintiff, Inc..he has nothing to say about his case, but the plaintiff in the merged case is M.. O..explaining that he did not accept the lawsuit, he defended the decision to dismiss the merged case.
Defendant A.. A..; plaintiff Inc..however, the plaintiff’s son helped him in the affairs of the bond, the merged plaintiff M.. O..explaining that he sewed the bond that he was the subject of the lawsuit last year, the plaintiff Ş.. A..acceptance of the case; the plaintiff of the merged case is M.. A.. Sh..he defended the decision to dismiss his case.
According to the Court, the partial acceptance of the case in terms of the main case is Denizli Province, B.. County, K.. Dark, .. the claimant’s inheritor of the high system vineyard and drip irrigation facility in the area indicated by (B) in the science expert report of the real estate parcel number A.. A..denizli Province B with the partial acceptance of the case in terms of the merged case’. County, K.. For example, the plaintiff of the high system bond in the area indicated by (E) in the science expert report of the immovable property No. 352 parcel is M.. O..upon the determination that it belongs to, the decision on the refusal of the claim for the excess, the judgment is made by the defendant-the plaintiff of the merged case M.. O.. the main case and the merged case have been appealed by the.
From the point of view of the main case, the defendant-the plaintiff of the merged case is M..A.. A..in the examination of the appeals of the deputy;
In court, the plaintiff is Ş..citing the rule that in the petition of the claimant claims that the beneficial costs were incurred by him, and in most of them there are few, the plaintiff of the proceedings is..the bequest is left by his father A.. A.. although it has been decided to determine that it was commissioned by the court, the court has no opportunity to agree with this opinion. As follows; from the collected evidence and the entire scope of the file; the subject of the case is the defendant of the real estate No. 352 parcel F.. K.. outside the main case and the lawsuit on behalf of the defendants by the plaintiffs combined fee “field” attribute where the title deed is registered in the land, and the technical expert’s report (B) muhdesat vineyard and the vineyard with the letter shown in the nature of the plaintiff s irrigation system.. A..the father of A.. A.. built by, A.. A..it can be seen that he owns 1/12 of the shares in the real estate subject to the lawsuit and is at the defendant stage in the main case and the merged case. It should be noted right away that HMK No. 6100 is 26. (HUMK’s 74.) according to the provision of the article; The court is bound by the claims and defenses of the parties and their claims. It is impossible for the court to rule on more than one or another request. In the concrete case, the plaintiff is Sh.. A..the father of A.. A..in addition, he has the title of defendant in the main and merging cases, and A.. A.. although there is no case and request filed duly by the court, the court must provide written justification and A.. A..the decision to determine that it belongs to is contrary to procedure and law.
The defendant-the plaintiff of the merged case is M.. A..A.. as for the examination of the appeals of his deputy to the merged case;
From the content of the petition and the collected evidence, F. Who previously owned a share in the immovable property of peach trees, the subject of the lawsuit requested to be identified.. K.. erected by, the plaintiff M.. A..A..the content of the previous stakeholder F.. K..it is understood that he has opened the case, claiming that he bought it from. It should be immediately noted that the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 No. 684 on the scope of the right to property. according to the provision of Article 718, as it is owned by the integral parts of that thing that is owned by something, it is also owned by it. according to the provision of the article, the immovable property also includes the contents of the land together with the integral part located on the land. 688 Of the same Law again. as explained in the article, multiple people in shared ownership own everything that is not materially divided with certain shares. When the described legal facts are taken into account, the one who buys a share of the real estate supply also becomes the owner of the information on the share ratio. It is impossible to sell the content separately from the floor of the real estate (supply). As it happens, in terms of the peach trees of the relevant nature, the plaintiff M.. A.. A..since the seller has purchased and used this part and has inherited the right of its seller, an acceptance decision should be made in this regard, while a decision to reject it was not considered correct.
Apart from that, it was understood that the vineyards grown by the plaintiff Mehmet were planted during the trial and were not of a concise nature. Although it was not considered correct to make an acceptance decision in terms of the above-mentioned binding agreements by the court, the reason for the violation in terms of the appellant’s adjective was not made.
Conclusion: The defendant-the plaintiff of the merged case is M.. A..A.. the appeals of the deputy are valid for these reasons. With the adoption of the provision, the Provisional 3 of HMK No. 6100. article 428 of the Law No. 1086 by sending the article. in accordance with Article 388/4 of the Code of Human Rights by the parties, that there is no place for its deterioration or examination of other matters for the time being. (HMK m.297 /ç) and in accordance with Articles 440 / I of the Criminal Code, it was unanimously decided on 23.10.2014 that a request for correction of the decision against the announcement could be made within 15 days from the notification of the announcement of the Supreme Court Department and that the refund of the advance payment of TL 149.90 was made upon request. (¤¤)
