Negative Determination And Restitution Cases – Case Law
Although the plaintiff denied the signature on the promissory note, the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report determined that
the signature on the promissory note was made by the plaintiff’s hand; although it is necessary to examine
signatures predating the document’s date, it has been established that even signatures made after the promissory note’s date
match the signature on the promissory note, and since it is understood that this procedural deficiency does not
, the plaintiff’s appeals regarding this matter are
dismissed; regarding the claim of non-payment, since the court made no
findings in the reasoned decision and did not discuss the evidence in this regard, it is established that when the issuance section of the promissory note
is left blank, it is generally presumed to be “in cash”
; if the plaintiff, by arguing otherwise, claims it is “in kind,” they are obligated to present
equally conclusive evidence; since the plaintiff has not submitted written evidence regarding the
instrument’s lack of consideration, the defendant’s defense of absolute nullity remains valid; the
is also an act constituting a crime, and therefore cannot be proven through
oath or cross-examination;
In the case between the parties, following the appeal filed by the plaintiff’s counsel against the decision dated April 18, 2017,
No. 2015/1078 E. – 2017/297 K., issued by the … Civil Court of First Instance,
regarding the acceptance or rejection of the appeal, the decision dated March 16, 2020, No. 2017/4306 E. – 2020/686 K., issued by the 16th Civil
Chamber, dated March 16, 2020, and numbered 2017/4306 E. – 2020/686 K., regarding the acceptance or rejection of the appeal, was requested to be reviewed by the Court of Cassation
by the plaintiff’s counsel, and since it was determined that the appeal petition was filed within the prescribed time limit,
the report prepared by the Examining Judge … regarding the case file
was heard, and after reviewing the petition, pleadings, trial transcripts, and all documents
in the file, the matter was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s counsel stated that the plaintiff entered into a Tractor Sales Agreement with the defendant company
dated December 24, 2014; that a promissory note in the amount of 185,000.- TL was issued to the defendants
pursuant to the agreement; that the tractor was not transferred to the plaintiff as required by the agreement, and therefore
has become void, that the defendant, acting in bad faith, initiated enforcement proceedings
using the promissory note in its possession to collect the funds, that the plaintiff, due to health issues,
due to health issues; that an examination of the defendant’s commercial records would reveal
that the tractor was not transferred; that the underlying debt-creating transaction for the promissory note
was not executed between the parties; and that the enforcement proceedings were conducted
unjustly and in bad faith, and thus requested a ruling determining that the plaintiff
owes no debt to the defendants.
The defendants’ counsel stated that the signature on the promissory note belongs to the plaintiff, that the defendant Ata Traktör …
Co. has no connection whatsoever to the promissory note in question or the enforcement proceedings, that they do not accept
that there is no provision regarding the promissory note in question in the sales contract,
that the promissory note in question was issued by the defendant … in exchange for a loan
provided to the plaintiff, and that since the promissory note constitutes an unconditional acknowledgment of debt,
the plaintiff must prove the contrary with written evidence, and thus requested that the case be dismissed.
The Court, based on the entire case file, determined that in the enforcement proceeding file No. 2015/6450 of the … Enforcement Office,
the creditor … initiated an enforcement proceeding specific to negotiable instruments against the debtor … based on a promissory note dated June 26, 2015,
dated June 26, 2015, and payable on June 30, 2015, and that the report of the ATK Forensic Science Department stated that the signatures on the promissory note were
the work of …’s hand, the court ruled to dismiss the case and, since the conditions for damages were not met, decided that there was no basis
, and it was ruled that there was no basis for awarding damages in favor of the defendants; the plaintiff’s attorney
has filed an appeal against the decision.
In the appellate review conducted by the Regional Court of Appeal; although the plaintiff denied the signature on the promissory note,
the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report determined that the signature on the promissory note was the plaintiff’s own handwriting;
and although it is necessary to obtain and examine signatures predating the document’s date,
since even signatures made after the promissory note’s date match the signature on the promissory note,
it was determined that the procedural deficiency does not affect the outcome;
therefore, the plaintiff’s appeals regarding this matter are dismissed. Regarding the claim of non-payment,
since the court made no findings in the reasoned decision and did not discuss the evidence in this regard,
it must be accepted that when the issuance section of the promissory note is left blank, the term “in cash”
is generally accepted; if the plaintiff, by arguing otherwise, claims it is “in kind,” they are obligated to
present equally conclusive evidence, and since the plaintiff has not submitted written evidence
regarding the instrument’s lack of consideration, the defendant’s defense of nullity remains valid; the claim of lack of consideration
also constitutes a criminal act, and it is understood that it cannot be proven through an oath or cross-examination;
while the dismissal of the case is correct in principle, the decision of the court of first instance, which is found to lack sufficient grounds,
has been overturned, and the case has been dismissed.
The plaintiff’s counsel has appealed the decision.
Following the appeal filed against the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance,
as a result of the review conducted in accordance with Articles 355 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Regional
Court of Appeal, in its final decision on the merits, found that there was no aspect contrary to the legal rules applicable to the specific
dispute as determined by the case file, nor
and since there were no grounds requiring the application of Articles 369/1 and 371 of the HMK,
it was necessary to affirm the Regional Court of Appeal’s decision, which was in accordance with
procedure and law.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, the appellant’s counsel’s appeal is dismissed, and the decision
rendered by the Regional Court of Appeal is affirmed pursuant to Article 370(1) of the HMK;
the case file is remanded to the Court of First Instance
Court for further proceedings, a copy of the decision to be sent to the Regional Court of Appeal, and the remaining
appeal filing fee of 4.90 TL to be collected from the appellant, it was decided unanimously and definitively on
June 21, 2021.
11th Civil Chamber, June 21, 2021, Case No. 2020/6291, Decision No. 5241