T.R. SUPREME COURT
- Law Office
Basis: 2016/635
Decision: 2016/7543
Decision Date: 28.06.2016
REQUEST FOR CANCELLATION OF CADASTRE DETECTIONS – IF THE CADASTRE MINUTES IS THE FOLLOWER, THE CASE FILE MUST BE TAKEN BETWEEN THE FILE AND A DECISION MUST BE MADE ACCORDINGLY TO THE IMMOVABLE FILE
SUMMARY: In addition, in the discovery dated …, the plaintiff declared that he did not sue the .. island .. parcel, the .. island .. parcel report was not brought into the file, the original cadastral report was requested with our return decisions, and the land registry and related cadastre directorates indicated that in the district of …, in the neighborhood of .. Since it was understood that there was no real estate with the parcel number of the island .. parcel, but on the sent sketch, it was understood that the immovable with the parcel number .. island .. was found, the court duly investigated whether there was an immovable with the parcel number .. island.. If the defendant is the defendant, the case file should be included in the file and a decision should be made about the immovable accordingly. The judgment had to be overturned.
(1086 S. K. Art. 438)
Litigation: After the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals to examine the verdict established at the end of the hearing of the case between the parties, the file was examined after the decision to accept the appeal petition, which was understood to be in time, and the necessary was considered:
During the cadastre, … district, … …,mah/village, with an area of 1093,69 m² on behalf of … with a surface area of 122, parcel number 1, on behalf of … island 17 parcel no. 2296.52 m² with raw soil and bushes on behalf of …, 142 island 23 parcel no. 11,289.50 m² with raw soil and bushes on behalf of …, 142 island 18 parcel no. 2578.95 m² as a field on behalf of the defendant …, on 142 block no. 20 parcel numbered 2671.77 m², on behalf of the defendants as a field … and … and out of action … on behalf of the defendant … as a field with an area of 142 block 37, parcel no. 142, on behalf of … With a surface area of 9870,57 m² on behalf of the defendant …, with a surface area of 142 island 25 parcel no. With a surface area of 8342,59 m², no. 142, parcel no. 27, it is a field province. e on behalf of the defendant …, on behalf of the defendant … as a field with a surface area of 8143.08 m², parcel no. 142, parcel no. It has been determined by a commission decision on behalf of the defendant …and his friends, as a field with a surface area of .59 m².
With his petition dated 20/11/2008, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the cadastral determination of the immovables and the determination and registration in his own name, based on the land registry. In the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs of the combined file … and their friends, based on the land registry, against the parcels no. 142, 25 and 26, it was decided to merge with this lawsuit.
As a result of the trial, the court decided that the case was rejected, parcels no. 142, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31, parcels no. 122 1 and 19 were registered and registered, parcels no. 136 and 37 and 64 were registered. The decision was made to reject the lawsuit for waiver due to waiver, to register and register the parcels to the land registry such as identification, to reject the lawsuit of the claimant of the combined file, to register and register the parcels no. 145, 25 and 26 to the title deed such as determination, due to the absence of parcels no. 17, 18 and 20 on the island of 122 in the neighborhood of … It was decided that it was not necessary to give a verdict, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff.
The case is about the objection to the cadastral determination.
There is a land cadastre, which was made in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Law No. 3402, amended by Law No. 5304 and announced between 22/10/2008 – 21/11/2008 at the place where the contested immovables are located.
1) In terms of the appellant’s objections to the contested parcels of 142 island 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 122 block 1;
The scope of the file examined, the reasoning of the decision, the discovery and expert reports received, the land registry records of the plaintiff’s basis for the contested immovables did not comply, the immovables with no. Since it was determined that there was no possession on the immovables numbered 16, 17 and 23 on the island plots, and it was determined that there was no possession of bushes and raw land, and there was no inaccuracy in the establishment of a judgment in written form, it was necessary to reject the objections that were out of place and to uphold the procedural and lawful judgment.
2) Although the immovables subject to the lawsuit in the combined file are already the defendants in the main file, parcels no. 142, 25 and 26, in the decision of the court in terms of the combined file, the island number of the parcels should be written as “142”, while the number “145” should not be written based on a material error.
Since the cadastral court judge has the obligation to create a correct record, the phrase “145 islands” in the 3rd paragraph of the provision had to be removed and replaced with the phrase “142 islands”.
3) As for the plaintiff’s objections to the contested immovables with no. 142, parcel no. 18, 20 and 37;
The research and examination carried out by the court is not sufficient to make a decision. In the petition of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit by writing the immovables no. 122 no. 18 and 20 and parcels no. 136 and 37 as the contentious immovables. , 18 and 20 parcels numbered 142 in reality, in the petition of appeal, he waived the 136 parcel no. 37 due to the mistake in the location, the real island number of the parcel no. 37 was again 142 and he did not waive the parcel no. According to the cadastral records, which were included in the file with the return decisions by our office, it was decided that the case was rejected on the grounds that there was no waiver for the parcel no. 18 and 37 numbered parcel identification owners and 20 parcels It is understood that among the cadastral determination owners … and … are among the defendants.
By the court; As explained above, the immovables that the plaintiff wants to file a lawsuit against are not 122 blocks 18 and 20 and 136 parcels 37, but actually 142 parcels 18, 20 and 37 parcels. Since it is understood that two of the fixation owners of parcel no. 142 and parcel no. 142 and parcel no. 142 are defendants in the lawsuit petition, it is understood that the plaintiff has directed the case to the property owners of determination, it is accepted that there is no valid waiver about the contested parcels no. 142, parcels 18, 20 and 37, and parcels no. by the owners of parcel no. 142, parcel no. 136, out of lawsuit … and … after being included in the lawsuit and asking and collecting the evidences to be reported by the parties, making discovery and expert examination, and making a decision according to the result. land registry office to be finalized It was not considered correct to make a decision as written when it should have been sent to the e-mail address and necessitated reversal.
In addition, in the discovery dated 08/11/2010, the plaintiff declared that he did not sue the parcel no. 122 on island 19, the report of parcel no. 122 on island 19 was not brought into the file, the original cadastral report was requested with our return decisions, and the land registry and relevant cadastre directorates determined that parcel no. 122 in the district of … 19 Since it is understood that there is no real estate with the parcel number, but it is understood that there is no real estate with the parcel number 122 and lot 19 in the sent sketch, it is duly investigated by the court whether there is a parcel no. While a decision should be made about the immovable according to this, it is not appropriate for the court to decide on the registration and registration of parcel no.
Conclusion: 1) For the reasons explained in the first paragraph above; Refusal of the plaintiff’s objections to the objections, which are not found out of place, in terms of plots no. 142, 16, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 and 122, and 1, and APPROVAL of the judgment that is in accordance with the procedure and the law,
2) For the reasons explained in the second paragraph, the phrase “145 islands” in the 3rd paragraph of the provision was removed and the phrase “142 islands” was written and the provision was amended by the provisional article 438/7 of the HUMK with reference to the provisional article 3 of the Law No. 6100. APPROVED this as amended in accordance with the article,
3) For the reasons explained in the third paragraph; It was unanimously decided on 28.06.2016 that the appeal of the plaintiff … was accepted in terms of parcels no.
