Although the plaintiff denied the signature on the promissory note; according to the Forensic Medicine Institute report it was determined that the signature was the product of the plaintiff’s hand, although it was older than the date of the document. Although it is necessary to examine the signatures by obtaining the signatures, it is necessary to examine the signatures after the date of the promissory note. Even the signatures coincide with the signature on the promissory note, and the procedural deficiency is concluded. it is understood that the plaintiff’s appeal requests regarding this aspect are not in the nature of affecting the rejection of the allegation of lack of remuneration, and that the court did not find any evidence in the reasoned judgement regarding the allegation of lack of remuneration. has not made a determination and has not discussed the evidence in this respect, the text of the promissory note when the issuance part of the promissory note is left blank, it is accepted as “in cash” as a rule if the plaintiff claims that it is “malen” and the claimant claims that it is “malen”, it has the same strength. the plaintiff is obliged to present conclusive evidence, and the written evidence regarding the non-pricelessness of the promissory note the defendant’s defence of non-exclusivity remains valid, and the defence of non-compensation
the allegation is also a criminal offence, and is also subject to oath and examination. it is not possible to prove;
In the case between the parties, the decision dated 18.04.2017 and given by the … Civil Court of First Instance Upon the appeal of the decision numbered 2015/1078 E. – 2017/297 K. by the plaintiff’s attorney, Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 16th Civil Law on the acceptance-rejection of the request for appeal The decision dated 16.03.2020 and numbered 2017/4306 E. – 2020/686 K. given by the Office of the Court of Cassation
The review was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney and the petition of appeal was submitted within the time limit It is understood that the report prepared by the Examining Judge … for the case file and again after hearing the petitions, pleadings, minutes of the hearing and all documents in the file After being read and examined, the necessity of the matter was discussed and considered:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that the plaintiff entered into a Tractor Sales Agreement dated 24.12.2014 with the defendant company. signed a guarantee deed with a value of 185.000.- TL to the defendants pursuant to the contract the tractor was not transferred to the plaintiff in accordance with the contract, therefore the subject of the lawsuit that the promissory note was irrelevant, and that the defendant, in bad faith, executed the execution with the bond in his possession and attempted to collect the money, the plaintiff was subjected to enforcement proceedings due to health problems that when the commercial books of the defendant were analysed, the tractor could not be transferred that the obligatory transaction on which the bond is based was not made between the parties, and that the execution claiming that the proceedings were unfair and made in bad faith, the plaintiff’s debt to the defendants the plaintiff’s signature on the promissory note belongs to the plaintiff.
Defendants’ attorney; the signature on the promissory note belongs to the plaintiff, the defendant Ata Traktör … Şti. has nothing to do with the promissory note and execution proceedings, the defendant company and the claimant on the basis of the contract dated 24.12.2015 signed between the plaintiff
that there is no statement in the sales contract regarding the bond subject to follow-up, in return for the money lent to the plaintiff by the defendant … the bond contains an unconditional acknowledgement of debt, the proof of the contrary is for the plaintiff arguing that it should be made by the party with written evidence and demanded the dismissal of the lawsuit He did.
The court, according to the entire file scope; … Enforcement proceeding of the Execution Office numbered 2015/6450 Esas In the file dated 26/06/2015 and 30/06/2015 about the debtor … by the creditor … enforcement proceedings were initiated for bills of exchange based on a promissory note with a maturity of 185.000.- TL, and in the report of the ATK Physics Expertise Department, the signatures on the promissory note are the product of …’s hand the case was dismissed on the grounds that it was stated that the compensation condition did not occur, the defendants it was decided not to award compensation in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s attorney against the decision applied to the legal remedy of appeal.
In the appeal examination conducted by the Regional Court of Appeal; the plaintiff denied the signature on the promissory note However, according to the Forensic Medicine Institute report, the signature on the promissory note is the product of the plaintiff’s hand it was determined that, although it was necessary to examine the document by obtaining signatures older than the date of the document
Although it is a matter of fact that the signatures after the date of the promissory note coincide with the signature on the promissory note, it is understood that the procedural deficiency does not affect the result, and the plaintiff’s requests for appeal regarding this aspect are rejected, regarding the claim of non-payment
In the reasoned decision, it is seen that the court did not make any determination and did not discuss the evidence in this direction, and it should be accepted that when the issuance part of the promissory note is left blank in the text of the promissory note, as a rule, it should be accepted that it is “in cash”, and if the plaintiff claims that it is “malen” by claiming this, the same the plaintiff is obliged to present conclusive evidence in strength, and the written evidence regarding the non-pricelessness of the promissory note the defendant’s defence of mere impermissibility remains valid, and the claim of lack of consideration it is also a criminal offence, which can be proved by oath and testimony it is understood that the dismissal of the case is correct as a result, but it does not have sufficient justification the decision of the court of first instance was cancelled and the lawsuit was dismissed.
The decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
As a result of the examination made methodically within the scope of Articles 355 et seq. of the CCP upon the application for appeal against the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance, the final decision rendered by the Regional Court of Justice on the merits does not have any aspect contrary to the rules of law that should be applied in terms of the concrete dispute determined according to the scope of the file, and there are no reasons requiring the application of Articles 369/1 and 371 of the CCP, it is necessary to decide to approve the decision of the Regional Court of Justice in accordance with the procedure and law.
CONCLUSION:
For the reasons explained above, the appeal of the plaintiff’s attorney is rejected and the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal is approved in accordance with Article 370/1 of the CCP, In accordance with Article 372 of the CCP, the case file shall be sent to the First Instance Court, a copy of the judgement to be sent to the Regional Court of Justice, below the balance of the written 4,90 TL appeal judgement fee to be taken from the appellant, 21/06/2021
It was decided unanimously on the date.
11. HD. 21.06.2021 T. E:2020/6291 , K:5241
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.