The Statements Of The Plaintiff Witnesses Are The Statements Transferred From The Plaintiff And Cannot Be Taken As A Basis For The Judgment – The Plaintiff Woman Failed To Prove That The Jewelry Was Cashed By The Defendant
T.C. JUDICIARY
2nd Civil Chamber
Basis: 2015/16048
Decision: 2016/12667
Date of Decision: 29.06.2016
DIVORCE CASE – THE STATEMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF WITNESSES ARE STATEMENTS TRANSFERRED FROM THE PLAINTIFF AND CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A BASIS FOR THE JUDGMENT – THE PLAINTIFF WOMAN COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE JEWELERY WAS CHANGED BY THE DEFENDANT – REVERSAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: The statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the jewelry was cashed and used in the construction business are statements quoted from the plaintiff and cannot be taken as basis for the judgment. The plaintiff woman could not prove that the jewelries were exchanged by the defendant. In the face of this situation, while the claimant woman’s claim for the jewelry should be rejected, its acceptance was not correct and required a reversal.
(4721 S. Code Art. 166)
Case and Judgment: At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the local court, dated and numbered above, was appealed by the defendant in terms of fault determination, damages and jewelry receivable, and the documents were read and discussed accordingly:
1- According to the writings in the case, the evidence on which the judgment is based and the reasons in accordance with the law and especially since there is no mistake in the appreciation of the evidence, the appeals of the defendant man other than the scope of the following sub-paragraph are unwarranted.
2- The plaintiff woman claimed that the jewelery worn at the wedding was cashed by the defendant and used in his contracting business with his father, and the defendant man defended that the plaintiff woman deposited it in the safe deposit box opened in her name at the bank a few days after the wedding. It is understood from the bank’s reply that the jewelery belonging to the plaintiff was placed in the bank by the woman on 13.09.2007 by renting a safe deposit box after the marriage of the parties, and that the safe deposit box was last visited and closed by the plaintiff on 19.09.2008. The statements of the plaintiff’s witnesses that the jewelry was cashed and used in the construction business are statements quoted from the plaintiff and cannot be taken as a basis for the judgment. The plaintiff woman could not prove that the jewelry was cashed by the defendant. In the face of this situation, while the claimant woman’s claim for the jewelry should be rejected, its acceptance as written is not correct and required a reversal.
Conclusion It was unanimously decided that the appealed judgment shall be DISMISSED for the reason shown in subparagraph 2 above, and the appealed parts that are not within the scope of the reversal shall be APPROVED for the reason shown in subparagraph 1 above, and if requested, the pre-appeal fee shall be returned to the depositor, and the way of decision correction shall be open within 15 days from the notification of this decision. 29.06.2016
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.