T.C.
SUPREME
law office
2015/8953
2015/13935
10.9.2015
2918/m. 19,20
CASE : As a result of the determination of vehicle ownership between the parties and the court’s adjudication of the registration case, the provision made for the partial acceptance of the case was decisively withdrawn from the defendants within the period of F.K. upon appeal by the court; After the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
DECISION : The deputy plaintiff filed a petition; the dolphin defendant’s father with their other brother, Mehmet avsar on immovable property from agricultural activities in the village of Muris together and they were both on conducting Karabük iron and steel, uncle, nephew, and brother to carry out commercial activities in the form of, through the procedure of agricultural activities in the village opting yaricilik the dolphin’s, tractors, agricultural activities, which are required for this, and they took the decision to be taken on the basis of the magistrate’s court in 2010/78 movable property which is the subject of the elimination of the partnership with the tractor taken from the market in 1998, the dolphin on the tractor tractor registered in the name of partnership and later they organized the stock of the protocol, after the death of the dolphin, they are involved in the case of the partnership between the elimination of the heirs, the ownership of the file in question has been given for the determination of the case on the opening of the tractor numbered plate 272 19 … for this reason that in the name of the cancellation of the dolphin with the client deal with the DMV in equity, other partners and Mehmet Y. K. he requested that the registration of their names be decided upon upon the determination that the property is jointly owned by the heirs of .
In the response petition given by the defendant Fatma’s attorney; on the partnership protocol dated 26/10/1998 of the plaintiff’s attorney, Y.K. and the absence of the signature of the old man’s delegation, and M, who is shown as a partner.K.although he made a claim for ownership due to the lack of his signature, the partnership did not take place, was invalid and destroyed, as well as if he had a claim for ownership, M.K. he demanded that his heirs should file a lawsuit together and separately, and therefore the lawsuit filed unfairly and unwarranted should be dismissed on the merits.
They are brother and sister by the parties and by the court, deed is a simple protocol previously negotiate with the actions under this protocol, the parties jointly they took a tractor, the tractor in order to be the easiest of the formal process of Muris registered on behalf of the defendant, but the plaintiff also has a share in the tractor 1/3 partial registration with the acceptance of the case on the grounds that traffic commissioner Y. Çorum KargıK. 19 … 272 license plates registered in the name of the vehicle with the cancellation of the registration of ownership in the license at a rate of 1/3 Y.K. At the rate of 2/3 y.K. it was decided to register his name, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant Fatma.
According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons for the legal requirement, and in particular, there is no inaccuracy in the discretion of the evidence, the defendant’s other appeals are not in place.
The decision on registration is a decision of an administrative nature, and the court cannot force the administration to make a decision on registration. Although the deputy plaintiff requested registration together with the registration of the ownership of the tractor in the petition of claim, the court should be satisfied only with the fact that it decided to determine the ownership of the tractor, but it was not considered correct to decide on the registration together with the registration of ownership, it required a violation.
CONCLUSION: As of this moment, the provision in writing is invalid, without taking into account the principles described above, and appeals are in place for these reasons, so the decision is made with acceptance.nun 428.according to the article, it was decided unanimously on 10.09.2015 that it would be OVERTURNED and that the appeal fee received in advance would be returned to the appellant upon request.
