T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
MAINLY NO: 2015/12693
DECISION NO: 2016/6190
DATE OF DECISION: 23.5.2016
REQUEST TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF INHERITANCE – NO SHARES CAN BE GIVEN TO HEIRS WHO REFUSE THE INHERITANCE
4721/m.611,612
SUMMARY : The case concerns a request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance. Since the inheritance of the one who died in 2004 from the heirs of the root murisin was rejected by his wife and children, his estate will be officially liquidated, it is impossible to give shares to the lower lineages of the heirs who refused the inheritance.
LITIGATION : plaintiff’s attorney by 10.03.2014 given on the day of the hearing on the petition with a request for issuance of Certificate of the inheritance at the end; the acceptance of the case for examination by the plaintiff’s attorney requested blog yargitayca 06.11.2014 provision given time, but apparently decided upon the adoption of the petition of Appeal has been resolved by examining all the papers in the file and:
decision
The case concerns the request for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance.
Deputy plaintiff, his client’s muris Mehmet B.since he died a widower and childless in 1968, he requested to be given a certificate of inheritance with a bet.
According to the court, the root is Muris Mehmet B.one of the heirs of Bahattin B., who died in 2004.the legacy of his wife Yektane B., their children Dilek, Yelda and Nur B. by Uskudar 2. Since the Magistrate’s Court’s Decision No. 2004/6221 was rejected by Decision No. 2004/521, the TMK’s 611. Mehmet Berk D., who is the subordinate of the named heirs according to the article., Murat D., Omar D., Zeynep E. and Sena E.it has been decided to issue a certificate of inheritance, in which ’is also indicated as the heir.
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff.
The root is muris Mehmet B.one of the heirs of Bahattin B., who died in 2004.the legacy of his wife Yektane B., their children Dilek, Yelda and Nur B. because it was rejected by TMK 612. Mehmet Berk D., the lower lineages of the heirs who refused the inheritance, since their estate will be officially liquidated in accordance with the article., Murat D., Omar D., Zeynep E. and Sena E.It is not possible to give a share to ’ Moreover, the root in the case is Muris Mehmet B., who died in 1968.Bahattin B. ‘s certificate of inheritance has been requested.the heirs of Tectane, Dilek, Yelda and Nur B.it is mandatory to give a share to ’ In this case, it was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing, so the decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 23.05.2016 that the provision would be BROKEN for the reasons described above, and the fee deposited in advance would be returned to the depositor upon request.
T.C.
SUPREME
- law office
BASE NO: 2010/5232
DECISION NO: 2011/4644
DATE OF DECISION: 16.5.2011
REJECTION OF THE INHERITANCE–LIQUIDATION OF THE REJECTED INHERITANCE- LIQUIDATION BY THE MAGISTRATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BANKRUPTCY PROVISIONS- REJECTION OF THE CLOSEST HEIRS WILL NOT BE PASSED ON TO THE SUBSEQUENT HEIRS UNLESS IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HEIRS WHO CAME AFTER THEM AND THE INHERITANCE IS EXPRESSLY ACCEPTED
4721/m. 612
LAWSUIT: The plaintiffs requested that a decision be made on the payment of material and non-pecuniary damages arising from the death of someone as a result of an occupational accident. The court, in accordance with the violation, ruled on the partial acceptance of the request, as indicated in its decision.
The verdict is N. from the defendants. D. after it was understood that the appeal request was in due course upon appeal by the deputy and the papers in the file were read with the report prepared by the Examining Judge Mehmet Beleç, the need for the work was considered and the following decision was determined:
decision
The lawsuit is related to the request to eliminate the material and moral damages of the rightful owners of the insured person who died as a result of an occupational accident.
One of the defendants who died during the trial with the partial acceptance of the case by the court is Kenan Y.due to the fact that the heirs of the ‘s unconditionally refused the inheritance, it was decided to dismiss the case from the point of view of the heirs Ali, Nilgun and Hadiya.
From the records and documents in the file; Kenan Y. from the defendantsupon the death of Hadiye Y., who had heirs, during the trial on 24.3.2008., Nilgün Y. and Ali Y.according to the decision of the Tavşanlı Magistrate’s Court dated 30.4.2008 dated 2008/318 E 2008/249 K, Kenan Y.it is understood that this decision was finalized on 2.6.2008, when it was decided that they unconditionally refused the inheritance of
T, which constitutes the legal basis of the case.M.K. m. an inheritance that has been rejected by all of the closest legal heirs in accordance with articles 612 and its continuation. It is liquidated in accordance with the bankruptcy provisions by the Magistrate’s Court. Heirs may ask the heirs who came after them to be asked if they will accept the inheritance when they refuse the inheritance before liquidation. In this case, the refusal will be notified by the Magistrate to the subsequent heirs, who will be deemed to have refused if they do not accept the inheritance within a month. Upon this, the inheritance is again liquidated in accordance with the bankruptcy provisions, and the remaining values at the end of the liquidation are given to the heirs who came first. The refusal of the closest legal heirs is not in the interests of the heirs who came after them, and they are under Article 614 of the Law. the inheritance does not pass to subsequent heirs unless they expressly accept the inheritance in accordance with the procedure set out in the article. Nor shall they be held liable for the debts of the testator.
In a concrete case, the Inheritance was rejected by the legal heirs, who are the spouses and children of the testator, and the estate was subject to liquidation in accordance with the bankruptcy provisions. For this reason, before the liquidation process is completed, Kenan Y.on the grounds that the heirs of the defendant Kenan Y.The decision to dismiss the case against has been unsuccessful.
The work to be done; the defendant is Kenan Y.since it is fixed by the court decision submitted that all the closest heirs of the country have refused the inheritance, the liquidation of the inheritance according to the bankruptcy rules should be provided by notifying the magistrate of the district, Kenan Y., whose inheritance was rejected by the said court a representative who will be appointed and authorized to continue the case with peace of mind and decide according to the result.
The establishment of a provision by the court in writing without providing a party organization without taking into account these material and legal facts is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for the violation.
In that case, defendant N. D.appeals of the appeal aimed at these aspects must be accepted, and the provision must be overturned.
CONCLUSION: Defendant N. According to the reason for the violation of the provision for the reasons described above, the reason for the violation D.it was decided unanimously on 16.5.2011 that there was no place for the examination of other appeals of the, if the appeal fee was requested, it would be returned to the appellant.
