T.C. SUPREME
8.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/2582
Decision: 2016/8703
Decision Date: 12.05.2016
CASE FOR CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF THE TITLE – THE HEIRS HAVE TAKEN THE TITLE OF PARTY IN THE CASE – THE CASE MUST BE REJECTED DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF ANIMOSITY – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
Summary: case, TMK.in accordance with the article nun, it relates to the request for registration with the cancellation of the title. As a rule, in cases of cancellation and registration of the title, the case is opened by referring to the owner of the registration, the owner of the registration or his heirs if their owners are dead. The heirs of the registrant estate were included as parties in the case. It was also included in the case on the grounds that the heirs were legal adversaries, although they took the title of party to the case. In cases of cancellation and registration of the title filed on the basis of a paragraph of the TMK, only if the owner of the registration died without leaving an heir, the case is filed as the last heir in accordance with the article of the TMK …or then, if this situation is understood, the case is directed to …in accordance with the said Article. Now that the heirs have taken the title of party to the case in the concrete case …he has no animosity in the case at hand. For this reason, it was not true that the case was rejected from the point of view of the defendant due to the absence of animosity, while the decision was made to accept it from the point of view of the case. The sentence had to be broken.
(4721 P. K. m. 501, 713, 724)
Case: … with … and their clients regarding the acceptance of the decommissioning and registration case between them … 2. The court of First Instance …the examination of the numbered provision by the Supreme Court was requested by the defendant’s attorney during his term; the file was examined, considered necessary:
The attorney of the plaintiff explained that it is unclear when the owner of the real estate registered in the parcel, which is registered in the name of the master’s heirs and has been in the plaintiff’s savings since 1975, died in the deed, TMK 713/2. in accordance with article 724 of TMK, if these requests are not possible, the registration on behalf of the surrogate with the cancellation of the registration of the real estate title. in accordance with the article, he asked for a decision on the registration of temliken.
The defendant … his attorney defended the dismissal of the case by explaining that the party did not have a driver’s license in the case, and other defendants who were heirs of the estate of the record did not participate in the trial sessions.
713/2 Of TMK. after the decision was made to accept the case on the grounds that the conditions of the article were formed in the interest of the plaintiffs, the cancellation of the registration of the real estate number of the parcel and the registration on behalf of the plaintiff; the provision was appealed by the defendant’s attorney.
According to the description in the lawsuit petition and the full scope of the file, the request is 713/2 of the possession and TMK that provided the win. 713/1 and 2 of the TMK based on the legal reason “maliki died 20 years ago…” contained in the paragraph. it is a case of title cancellation and registration related to the transfer of property filed in accordance with the paragraphs.
1-before the real estate subject to the lawsuit … 977 muharrem 286 date 91-1 in 1959 as a parcel of deed work based on the title deed dead … was determined on behalf of the heirs of the master, the cadastre determination was completed and finalized on the appeal of the case on 28.2.1978 as determined ishakoglu …was registered in the title deed on behalf of the heirs of the master. Later, with the renovation works, the real estate … became a parcel, The Register was created on 29.1.1999 on behalf of the same owner. No transfer has been made in the land registry until the date of the case. TMK from the plaintiff’s point of view.since there is no hit in the decision to accept the case on the grounds that the conditions specified in Article 713/2 of the defendant … to reject other appeals other than the following considerations,
2-defendant … as for the other appeals of his attorney;
The case, TMK.nun 713/2. in accordance with the article, it relates to the request for registration with the cancellation of the title. As a rule, in cases of cancellation and registration of the title, the case is opened by referring to the owner of the registration, the owner of the registration or his heirs if their owners are dead. The heirs of the registrant estate were included as parties in the case. It was also included in the case on the grounds that the heirs were legal adversaries, although they took the title of party to the case. TMK’s 713/2. in cases of cancellation and registration of the title filed on the basis of the paragraph, only if the owner of the registration died without leaving an heir, the 501 TMK. in accordance with the article, the case is filed by referring to …as the last heir, or then, if this situation is understood, the case is directed to …in accordance with the said Article. Now that the heirs have taken the title of party to the case in the concrete case …he has no animosity in the case at hand. For this reason, it was not true that the case was rejected from the point of view of the defendant due to the absence of animosity, while the decision was made to accept it from the point of view of the case.
Conclusion: the defendant … 2 above the appeals of the attorney’s appeal. since it is seen in place for the reason described in bendde, the adoption of provision 6100 is temporary 3 of HMK. article 428 of Humk No. 1086. in accordance with Article 1 of the other appeals of the defendant’s attorney. since it was not seen in place for reasons written in the bent, the rejection was rejected by the parties to the humk 388/4. (HMK m.297 / O) and in accordance with Article 440/1 of Humk, it was unanimously decided on 12.05.2016 that a request for correction of the decision can be made within 15 days from the notification of the decision of the Supreme Court.
