T.R. Supreme Court 1st Law Office Base: 2016/ 15630 Decision: 2020 / 798 Decision Date: 12.02.2020
JUDICIARY DECISION
COURT: CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
TYPE OF CASE:
DEED>
CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION
In the case between the parties;
The plaintiff stated that the joint inheritors registered their immovable properties, no. 101, 13, 116, 127 and 148 parcels, in the name of the defendant’s son, during the cadastral determination, but that the transaction was for the purpose of smuggling property from the heirs.
arguing that he is fake
your deeds
requested its registration in his/her name at the rate of the inheritance share with its cancellation; also
With the testament drawn up by the notary public on 09.03.2011 by the testator, the whole of the immovable property numbered 116, parcel 139, 1/3 of his share in the immovables no. He made a request for criticism against the defendant …, claiming that he had bequeathed to …, 1/3 of his share to the other heirs, the defendant … and the out-of-court … and …, and that his reserved share was damaged.
Defendant … argued that the inheritor has other immovable properties, the defendant … stated that the hidden share of the plaintiff was not damaged and defended the rejection of the case.
The court decided to separate the case due to the fact that the subject of the case and the immovables are different from the defendant’s point of view; as to the defendant …
The decision given by the Chamber regarding the acceptance of the case on the grounds that the collusion phenomenon is fixed, said, “As for the concrete event; In terms of parcel no. 101, parcel no. 101, parcel no. 116, parcel no. 127 and parcel no. 148 on block 116, which were determined from the promissory note, which is the subject of the lawsuit, there is no implementation place of the Decision of Unity of Faiths dated 01.04.1974 and numbered 1/2, and
inheritor
TMK numbered 4721 in case of existence of conditions, where the allegation regarding collusion cannot be heard. It is clear that it can be the subject of the action for criticism envisaged in Articles 560 to 571 of the Turkish Civil Code. However, there is no request for criticism in the case. When this happens;
inheritor
While it should be decided to reject the annulment and registration willing lawsuit based on the legal reason of collusion, it is not correct to make a written judgment with a erroneous assessment.” The court dismissed the case as a result of the trial made in accordance with the reversal.
Although the decision was appealed by the plaintiff in due time, the report of the Investigation Judge was read and his opinion was taken. The file was examined, should be discussed, he thought.
-DECISION-
In the annulment decision, which was complied with, it was decided by taking the action as shown. APPROVAL of the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and law and the grounds of the annulment decision, with the rejection of the plaintiff’s unfounded appeal, 25.20 TL written below. It was unanimously decided on 12/02/2020 that the balance approval fee be collected from the appellant.
