T.C. SUPREME
20.Legal Department
Mainly: 2015/8868
Decision: 2016/4945
Decision Date: 21.04.2016
REGISTRATION CASE – CONTESTED REAL ESTATE WHERE THE FOREST CADASTRE WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE DATE OF DETERMINATION-THE PROVISION MUST BE UPHELD
Summary: According to the statement in the petition, the case relates to the registration of real estate that is not registered in accordance with the provision of the article of the Civil Code. A forest cadastre was not made before the date of determination in the location of the disputed real estate. The real estate subject to the lawsuit was determined as external to the deed in accordance with the article of the law on the deed during the work of the deed … it was finalized in the year. The scope of the file and any decision by the court to be granted by the court in accordance with the process of the first decision made by a denial of the request sketch by on the surplus (d) this provision is the case with the letter shown on the section of failure by the party to the appeal is rejected and the plaintiff in relation to this section upon usuli ruled in favor of the defendant …was established by considering vested to occur, since the rejection of the appeal of Appeal that are not seen in the place with procedures and in accordance with the law, has decided to ratification by the provision.
(4721 P. K. m. 713)
Case: after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to be in duration, the file was examined and considered decisively by the attorney of the plaintiff …the examination of the provision established at the end of the hearing of the case between the parties was requested by the court of Cassation.:
713 of the Civil Code, claiming that a piece of real estate in his village is not registered in the deed, that the conditions for acquiring real estate through the earning statute of limitations are formed in the interest of his client. according to the provision of the article, he asked for registration on behalf of his client.
The court, with the acceptance of the case, decided to register 2353 m2 and 12740 m2 Real Estate indicated by the letter (A) in the sketch of the science expert dated 21.07.2008 in the title deed on behalf of the plaintiff, the provision was appealed by…, our apartment dated 07.05.2009 and …/… the basis, … / … the decision was broken by the court, referring to the need for incomplete forest and possession research.
By the court, to warrant reversal of compliance following a subsequent trial, the case was partially with the adoption of the county…, … stay in the village and in the North and No. 533 parcel titling place External to the East titling place external, external titling place in the south, west and No. 532 533 parcels surrounded by expert science engineer with … …’s report dated 12/10/2010 in the schematic (A) and the … …2353,01 M2 surface area with specified immovable in the north of the District No. 537 and 539 … stay in the village and parcels, and parcels east No. 537 539, in the south, the place marked with the subject of the case (B), in the West, surrounded by parcel 538, the expert in science … … and the map engineer … …the property on an area of 2757.13 m2, indicated by the letter (D) in the 12/10/2010 report and sketch of TMK 713/1. in accordance with the article on behalf of the plaintiff, registration and registration in the land registry, rejection of the request for excess, 12/10/2012 science expert and map engineer prepared by the report of the decision October, 13.11.2008 date of the court and … / … – … / … Decision no. decision between the file of the science expert … … and … …by the sketch dated 21.07.2008 (C) marked with the letter 33298.50 m2 of the decision on the rejection of the request for registration of the decision was decisively decided, the decision was appealed by the defendant … attorney, our apartment 24.06.2013 date and … / … – …/… Sketch of immovable Decision No. with ref (a) the rejection of the appeal with the letter shown for the section of the appeal procedures and the provision approved in accordance with the law, immovable sketch the subject matter of the case (D) for the section shown with the letter of Appeal on appeal in terms of a denial of the request before they ruin the surplus is called, and (D) in the case where the section about letters is rejected, the plaintiff does not appeal the judgment, because the real person without disturbing the previous sketch of the immovable (d) shown with the letter usuli vested in favor of the defendant occurred in terms of the portion of …, although the court should decide to dismiss the case filed against the part of the contentious dispute indicated by the letter krokide (D), the decision to accept it was broken by referring to the need that it was a violation of the rule of procedural rights.
As a result of the trial conducted by the court after compliance with the violation notice, it was decided to reject the case filed against the place indicated by the letter (D) in the reports and sketches of 12/10/2010 of the science expert and the map engineer, the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
According to the statement in the petition, the case was filed under Section 713 of the Civil Code. it is related to the registration of real estate that is not registered in accordance with the provision of the article.
A forest cadastre was not made before the date of determination in the location of the disputed real estate. The subject of the lawsuit is immovable, during the work of the tapulama 2 of the law of Tapulama. according to the article, the deed was determined externally and finalized in 23.01.1981.
The scope of the file and any decision by the court to be granted by the court in accordance with the process of the first decision made by a denial of the request sketch by on the surplus (d) this provision is the case with the letter shown on the section of failure by the party to the appeal is rejected and the plaintiff in favor of the defendant upon this section in relation to vested usuli …since it was formed to occur ruled by considering the place of Appeal that are not seen in the rejection of the appeal, with the provision procedures and in accordance with the law, APPROVED unanimously 21.04.2016 day written approval of fees that appeals to yukletilm below, it’s decided.
