T.C. SUPREME
- Law Department Article No:2014/19529
Decision No: 2014/20906 Decision Date: 24.06.2014 SUPREME COURT DECISION
COURT: Şereflikoçhisar 1. The Court Of First Instance
DATE: 29/01/2013
NUMBER: 2011/180-2013/76
At the end of the trial of the receivables case between the parties, for the reasons written in the dec
defendants within the period of the provision issued for partial acceptance of the case, partial rejection
upon appeal by his lawyer, the case was examined, discussed and considered as necessary.
decision
Plaintiff, defendant Y.. A..the other defendant, who is the daughter of N.. A..’i, his son M. He. in order to be able to marry the defendant
6,000.00 security money for the father, 6,000.00 TL for gold and 3,500.00 TL for clothes
that it was received and delivered, defendant N. however, the defendant Y.. A..’s official nuptials
that he did not kill, that he received alimony from his wife, whom his daughter divorced when they asked for an official wedding, and that the defendant’s daughter
stating that he took it away and that the defendants had unjustly caused him £15,500.00 in damages
the decision to collect the receivables of 15.500 TL from the defendants and to burden the court costs to the defendants
he has requested and sued to be granted.
The defendants have asked for the case to be dismissed.
According to the court, 5.000 TL for partial acceptance of the case will be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff,
it was decided to reject the request for an excess; the verdict was appealed by the defendants.
In addition to the plaintiff’s other demands, the defendant Yasar’s daughter, the other defendant Nurgul and his own son
in order to get married, the defendant claims that he gave Yasar $5,000.00 in security money (title money,
he has requested a refund of this price. By the court, “…the plaintiff’s son and one of the defendants N.. A..’s get married
in order for the parties to come together and start living together without an official marriage, the parties must dec
clothing and trappings given to the defendant by the plaintiff as a wedding gift before they live
it is understood that the trappings and gold pieces taken as wedding gifts were taken belonged to the woman
it has been decided to reject the request for their price. Although the plaintiff’s party has provided the defendants with 6,000
Although he stated that he gave TL assurance money, there is no written document stating that he gave TL 6,000 money
as such, the defendants admitted that they were given £5,000 money, and the witnesses also admitted that the plaintiff received £5,000 money
a guarantee of 5,000 TL to the defendants by the plaintiff, taking into account that they declare that it was issued by
it has been accepted that he was paid. From the scope of the file by the plaintiff
it is understood that the money given to the defendants was given as security money title money. Witnesses are also 5,000
They stated that TL was given to defendant Yaşar by the plaintiff as security money. The defendants also
They accepted that the guarantee money of 5.000 TL was given by the plaintiff. As a rule, the person
freedom of behavior is limited by the rules of law and general morality. Violation of the law of freedom of contract
as a result, the risk of exceeding or being affected by BK.jun 19 and 20. it is shown in the articles and as such
it has been accepted that a donation is invalid. A person can marry anyone he wishes, provided that the law
it is a requirement of fundamental rights and freedoms within borders. That the girl’s father was willing to marry
in exchange for the guarantee money, the goods or money that he receives under the title are illegal within these measures
since it will fall, the donations and commitments that provide it should also be considered null and void. For these reasons, the assurance
it was necessary to decide on the return of the 5,000 TL received as money to the plaintiff …”with the grounds
refusal of other claims of the plaintiff is subject only to the price of the jul-ture for the purpose of securing the said marriage
it has been decided to accept the request for. The common and free wills of the parties to the marriage are governed by the Civil Code
it has been arranged that it should be done within the framework of the principles it has determined. In the Civil Code and other laws
a price may be requested under the name of the security money (title money) to ensure the marriage jul
there is no regulation. The money paid under this name is contrary to general morality and public order
it is evident that. An incomplete debt in money paid in violation of general morality and public order
it is qualified and cannot be claimed through litigation. In this case, the court shall consider the case on the following grounds:
a written decision with an erroneous assessment is made without regard to this issue, while a complete refusal is required
its issuance is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires disruption.
CONCLUSION: For the reason described above, the appealed decision MAY be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendants, in advance
the refund of the TL 85.40 fee received upon request was decided unanimously on 24.6.2014.
