Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
Decision Date: 10.09.2016
CASE FOR CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION OF THE TITLE – THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON THE LEGAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PROVISION IS BASED – CONFIRMATION OF THE PROVISION
Abstract: in the case concerning the cancellation and registration of the title deed, there was no hit in the content of the file, with the evidence collected, with the legal and legal grounds on which the provision is based, in the appreciation of the evidence. A decision has been made to uphold the provision.
(1086 P. K. m. 436) (6100 P. K. Late. m. 3)
Case and verdict: in the case between the parties;
The plaintiff, No. 12 in the immovable island parcel 512 (8/112) to sell its share of the defendant ……’I need that on 15/08/2003 and agencies appoint a proxy in the history of 14/06/2004 on position, although acting on 17/06/2004 azilname has been communicated to the other conveyed by sale of shares to the defendant if it is by proxy of the sales price has been paid, the defendant and by the hands of saying that they are acting in cooperation with the cancellation of the deed registered in the name of, if not asked to decide on is the collection of the sales price.
The defendant …, real estate by proxy 10,000-TL sold to the other defendant, the plaintiff is given as the sales price 7.000 TL to the execution of a bond in the amount of costs to the plaintiff’s attorney by putting 9.000 TL that was paid, the plaintiff’s attorney when edited from the hands of the 2,000-TL paid a total of 11.000 TL was paid to the plaintiff as the sales price of which, except for the sale of the immovable that is not exchanged any money with the plaintiff, the defendant, for sale on the ad, the apartment is under construction and rough in a derelict state at the end of 2003 9.500 TL agreed with the defendant to buy …, 4.500 TL as the ornament, 5.000 TL 10/04/2004-dated checks was paid for by, but other drag themselves about the ownership of the defendant, that it is possible to transfer on 04/08/2004 following the transfer of the immovable 17.000 TL spending, goodwill and other agencies in collusion with the respondent and that it is not possible to know whether the act has been relieved, by specifying that he is the real victim argued for a dismissal.
The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proven.
The decision was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff during his term and with a request for a hearing, the request for a hearing was rejected from the value; the report of the examination Judge …was read, the opinion was taken. The case has been reviewed, discussed and considered.
Conclusion: the content of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and legal justification on which the provision is based, the lack of a hit in the evaluation of the evidence and, in particular, the claim that the abuse of power of attorney is not proven, the assignment is costly, the plaintiff collects the price through the enforcement channel, essentially this issue….. Criminal Court Of First Instance 2005/1132 E. in the session of his case dated 03/05/2006, it was determined that the plaintiff was also accepted by the plaintiff and that there was no hit in establishing the provision as written; the plaintiff’s appeal objection is not in place. 4.00, written below, to uphold the provision in accordance with the procedure and law with its rejection.- It was decided by unanimous decision on 10.05.2016 that TL balance approval fee be taken from the appellant.