T.C.
SUPREME
law office
2015/9657
2016/10945
8.11.2016
4721/m.989
LITIGATION : Plaintiff … by acting against her 07/03/2014 on the day the defendant with the petition made by the court upon request of the identification and registration of vehicle ownership at the end of the trial; the acceptance of the case at the Supreme Court decision dated 08/04/2015 given for the defendant to be examined in a hearing requested by the attorney, but pre-determined 08/11/2016 the day of the trial made upon notification of a hearing in which the defendant appeals the deputy arrived, the plaintiff from the opposite side it didn’t. An open hearing has been opened. After the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in due course, and after the oral statement of the person present was heard, the party was informed that the hearing was over. The case has been discussed. The report prepared by the audit judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as necessary:
VERDICT : The case is related to the request for the determination and registration of vehicle ownership. The court decided to accept the case, the verdict was appealed by the defendant.
The plaintiff, without the consent of the property that belongs to the side of the vehicle out of the hands of the case, file a civil suit for fraud about people outside opened, and the case before the vehicle is from the’eat her case from the’a, is transferred from him to the defendant, the transfer process will be invalid by specifying the agent name registration in the determination of the property that belongs to the side he wanted to.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed, stating that he was the third person with good intentions, that he bought the car from the gallery.
The court decided to accept the case on the grounds that the defendant was found to be in good faith, but when the situations of the owner who was deprived of the caliphate of intermediary consent on the one hand and the defendant who bought the vehicle in good faith on the other hand were evaluated; the plaintiff’s victimhood should be recognized as superior, the defendant was not brought by the defense that the vehicle was purchased from a place such as an auction or a gallery that sells the vehicle.
989, which carries the main title of the TMK’s “Savings Authority and Movable Property Case”. in its article; “A person whose property has been stolen, lost, or in any other way taken out of his hands against his will can file a movable case against anyone who holds this thing within five years. If this movable property has been acquired in good faith from an auction or sunday or those who sell similar items; a movable property lawsuit against the first and subsequent well-off acquirers can only be filed provided that the price paid is refunded,”the provision has been issued.
As it is clear from the text of the article; if a well-meaning third party buys something that comes out of the owner’s hands without his consent from an auction, sunday, or someone who sells such items; it is conditional that the original owner can win the extradition case against both this person and the subsequent acquis. In such cases, the price given by the bona fide third party to acquire this property must be returned to him by the plaintiff, that is, the original owner, who requests a refund. If this condition is not met, the court cannot accept the extradition case filed by the original owner. (Decision No. 2002/643 of the General Assembly of the Law dated 25/09/2002, Based on 2002/4-608)
In the concrete case, the defendant stated that he bought the car subject to the lawsuit from a person named … who works as a dealer, in other words … Otomotiv; as evidence, he showed a notarized sales deed dated 28/04/2011 for the transfer of the car and tax registration information of the out-of-case. In the letter dated 24/11/2014 written by the Malatya Tax Office addressed to the court; It was reported that the apartment … registered in the tax number … has started retail trade of cars and light motor vehicles in its apartments since 17/07/2009 and that its activity is still ongoing. Now then; it is understood that the defendant purchased the vehicle from a person who sells such items. On the other hand, the court also accepts that the defendant has good intentions. A claim and evidence to the contrary are also not included in the file. In that case, the plaintiff can only get his vehicle back from the defendant by paying the price. While the court should have decided on the acceptance of the extradition case if the price was paid, the decision had to be overturned because the fact that the judgment was established without taking into account the evil eye was not in accordance with the procedure and the law.
According to the acceptance, registration is an administrative process and the decision to cancel the registration in the traffic record and decide on a new registration and registration is a decision that forces the administration to take action. However, a decision of the kind that forces the administration to take action cannot be made at the place of judicial jurisdiction. The court should only be content with establishing a provision on the determination of ownership, it is also not correct that the cancellation of the traffic registration registration and the decision on the new registration and registration have been made.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 08.11.2016 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons shown above, and that the trial attorney’s fee of TL 1,350.00, which is appreciated for the defendant’s benefit, should be charged to the plaintiff, and that the fee received in advance should be refunded if requested.
