T.C.
SUPREME
law office
2015/8953
2015/13935
10.9.2015
2918/m. 19,20
LAWSUIT: As a result of the determination of vehicle ownership between the parties and the trial of the registration case by the court, the verdict issued for partial acceptance of the case was Decried by F.K. upon his appeal; After the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered as necessary:
VERDICT: The plaintiff’s attorney in the lawsuit petition; the dolphin defendant’s father with their other brother, Mehmet avsar on immovable property from agricultural activities in the village of Muris together and they were both on conducting Karabük iron and steel, uncle, nephew, and brother to carry out commercial activities in the form of, through the procedure of agricultural activities in the village opting yaricilik the dolphin’s, tractors, agricultural activities, which are required for this, and they took the decision to be taken on the basis of the magistrate’s court in 2010/78 movable property which is the subject of the elimination of the partnership with the tractor taken from the market in 1998, the dolphin on the tractor tractor registered in the name of partnership and later they organized the stock of the protocol, after the death of the dolphin, they are involved in the case of the partnership between the elimination of the heirs, the ownership of the file in question has been given for the determination of the case on the opening of the tractor numbered plate 272 19 … for this reason that in the name of the cancellation of the dolphin with the client deal with the DMV in equity, other partners and Mehmet Y. K. upon the determination that the property is jointly owned by the heirs of the, he requested that a decision be made on its registration in their names.
In the response petition given by the defendant Fatma’s attorney; The plaintiff’s attorney dated 26/10/1998 on the partnership protocol deed Y.K. and the absence of the signature of the committee of elders and M, which is shown as a partner.K.although he claims ownership due to the lack of his signature, the partnership has not taken place, it is invalid and has no provision, in addition, if there is a claim to ownership, M.K. he demanded that his heirs should sue together and separately, and therefore the unjust and unwarranted lawsuit should be dismissed on the merits.
They are brother and sister by the parties and by the court, deed is a simple protocol previously negotiate with the actions under this protocol, the parties jointly they took a tractor, the tractor in order to be the easiest of the formal process of Muris registered on behalf of the defendant, but the plaintiff also has a share in the tractor 1/3 partial registration with the acceptance of the case on the grounds that traffic commissioner Y. Çorum KargıK. with the cancellation of the ownership registration of the vehicle with the license plate number 19 … 272 registered in his name, at a rate of 1/3 Y.K. Y at the rate of 2/3.K. it was decided to register it in his name, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant Fatma.
According to the articles in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the legally necessary reasons and especially the fact that there is no wrongdoing in the evaluation of the evidence, the defendant’s other appeals are not in place.
The registration decision is an administrative decision, and the court cannot force the administration to make a decision on registration. Although the plaintiff’s attorney requested registration together with the determination of the ownership of the tractor in the petition, the court should only be content with deciding on the determination of the ownership of the tractor, while it was not considered correct to decide on registration together with the determination of ownership, it required a reversal.
CONCLUSION: In this respect, without taking into account the principles described above, the provision facility in writing is incorrect, since the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the HUMK of the provision is accepted.nun 428.it was unanimously decided on 10.09.2015 that the appeal fee received in advance should be overturned in accordance with the article and returned to the appellant upon request.
