Claimant’s Claim For Claims Based On Unjust Enrichment – Resolution Of The Dispute Is The Duty Of The General Courts
T.C. JUDICIARY
3rd Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/10495
Decision: 2016/9366
Date of Decision: 16.06.2016
COMPENSATION LAWSUIT – THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR RECEIVABLES BASED ON THE LEGAL REASON OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT – THE RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE IS THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL COURTS – THE JUDGMENT IS REVERSED
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s claim is not within the scope of the request for “pecuniary compensation based on the breakdown of the engagement” regulated in Article … of the TMK, but it is related to the claim for receivables based on the legal reason of unjust enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancé …, but also against the heirs of …, the title deed owner of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts. As such, while the court should enter into the merits of the matter and make a decision in accordance with the result, otherwise, making a decision of non-jurisdiction is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires reversal.
(6098 S. Code Art. 120) (6100 S. Code Art. 114)
Case and Decision: As a result of the trial of the debt case between the parties, upon the appeal of the judgment given for the dismissal of the case due to lack of jurisdiction by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit; after it was decided to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and considered accordingly:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated in the petition that his client and the defendants … got engaged, the house where the parties will live together when they get married …. n was allocated to the plaintiff … and the defendant … by the other defendants, who were her mother and siblings, the plaintiff made some useful and compulsory expenses on this immovable property, but upon the breakdown of the engagement, her client paid the cost of these renovations to the defendants …. ‘s request, but no payment has been made, and since the immovable property subject to the lawsuit is registered in the name of the defendant’s murisi …, all the heirs of the murisi … are shown as the defendant, and requested and sued the defendants jointly and severally for the collection of 20. 473.00 TL, which is the value of the useful and obligatory expenses incurred on the immovable property, together with the legal interest to be accrued as of the date of the lawsuit, jointly and severally.
In his reply petition, the attorney for the defendants stated that the lawsuit is related to the claim for receivables arising from the breakdown of the engagement, that the duty to hear the case belongs to the Family Court and that in this case, only the plaintiff and the defendant fiancé… can be directed, that the cost of all the expenses claimed by the plaintiff was paid by his client… and requested the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court, on the grounds that the expenses claimed by the plaintiff from the defendants is an expense arising from the engagement contract, that the expenses subject to the lawsuit are based on the legal reason of the breakdown of the engagement contract and that the duty to hear this case belongs to the Family Court, it was decided to procedurally dismiss the lawsuit due to lack of jurisdiction in accordance with Article 115/2 of the CCP with reference to Article 114/1-c of the CCP, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the concrete case; the plaintiff claimed that during the period of engagement with the defendant …, the defendant …’s family made some useful and compulsory expenses on the immovable property allocated to them by the defendant …’s family for them to reside after their marriage and registered in the title deed in the name of the defendant’s deceased, and requested the return of these expenses that increased the value of the immovable property due to the break of the engagement.
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim is not within the scope of the claim for “pecuniary compensation based on the breakdown of the engagement” regulated under Article 120 of the TCC, but is related to the claim for receivables based on the legal ground of unjust enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancé …, but also against the heirs of …, the title deed owner of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts.
As such, while the court should go into the merits of the matter and make a decision in accordance with the result, making a decision of non-jurisdiction as written is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires reversal.
Conclusion Since the appellate objections are appropriate for these reasons, it was decided unanimously on 16.06.2016 that the judgment shall be reversed in accordance with Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the prepaid appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant upon request.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.