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. The open trial has begun. After the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in due time, and after the oral explanation of the person present was heard, the party was informed that the hearing was over. The file was discussed. The report prepared by the audit judge and the papers in the file were examined and discussed as necessary:
DECISION: The case is related to the request for determination and registration of vehicle ownership. The court decided to accept the case, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant.
The plaintiff stated that the vehicle belonging to the ownership party left his hands without his consent, a public lawsuit was filed against non-litigants for fraud, the vehicle was first transferred to the non-litigation …, from him to the non-litigation … and from him to the defendant, the transfer transactions were invalid, and the vehicle’s ownership was determined to belong to the party and requested its registration on his behalf.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed by stating that he was a third person with good faith and that he bought the vehicle from the gallery.
The court concluded that the defendant was in good faith, but when the situations of the owner who took the vehicle out of his hands with his consent on one side and the defendant who bought the vehicle in good faith on the other side were evaluated, it was decided to accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s victimization should be given superiority, the defendant did not bring a defense that the vehicle was purchased from a place such as an auction or a gallery that sells vehicles.
989, which carries the main title of “Saving Authority and Movable Case” of the TMK. in the article; “The possession of the movable stolen, lost or otherwise out of his hands against his will, he can file a movable claim against anyone who has that thing in his possession within five years. Paid Sunday, or from those who sell similar goods, if this movable has been acquired in good faith; the movable case against the first and subsequent purchasers in good faith, can be opened only on condition that the price paid is returned,”the provision is regulated.
As it is understood from the text of the article; if a bona fide third party acquires something that comes out of the owner’s hands without his consent from an auction, Sunday, or someone who sells such an item, it is conditional that the original owner can win the return case that he will open against both this person and subsequent acquis. In such cases, the price given by a bona fide third party for the acquisition of this property should be returned to him by the plaintiff requesting the return, that is, the original owner. If this condition is not met, the court cannot accept the extradition case filed by the original owner. (Decision of the General Assembly of Civil Law dated 25/09/2002, 2002/4-608 Basis, Decision No. 2002/643)
In the concrete case, the defendant stated that he bought the vehicle subject to the case from a person named … who is a gallery owner, in other words … from Automotive; as evidence, he showed the notarized deed of sale dated 28/04/2011 on the transfer of the vehicle and the tax registration information of … out of the case. In the letter dated 24/11/2014 addressed by the Malatya Tax Department to the court; It is reported that the Department … 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 fact that the defendant is in good faith is also accepted by the court. An allegation and evidence to the contrary are also not included in the scope of the file. Then; The plaintiff can only get his vehicle back from the defendant by paying the price. While the court should have decided to accept the extradition case if the price was paid, the decision had to be overturned because the provision was not in accordance with the procedure and the law, without taking into account this issue.
According to the acceptance, registration is an administrative procedure and the cancellation of the registration in the traffic record and the decision to register and register a new registration is a decision that forces the administration to take action. However, a decision of the kind that compels the administration to take action cannot be made at the place of judicial jurisdiction. The court should be content with making a judgment only on the determination of ownership, it is also not true that the cancellation of the traffic registration registration and the new registration and registration have been decided.
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 fee of TL 1,350.00, which was appreciated for the benefit of the defendant, should be charged to the plaintiff, and that the fee received in advance should be refunded upon request.
