Registration Case – Forest Cadastre Was Not Carried Out Before The Determination Date In The Location Of The Contested Immovable
T.C. JUDICIARY
20th Civil Chamber
Main: 2015/8868
Decision: 2016/4945
Date of Decision: 21.04.2016
REGISTRATION CASE – FOREST CADASTRE WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BEFORE THE DATE OF DETERMINATION WHERE THE DISPUTED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS LOCATED – THE JUDGMENT SHOULD BE UPHELD
SUMMARY: According to the statement in the petition, the lawsuit is related to the registration of the immovable property without title deed in accordance with the article of the Civil Code. There was no forest cadastre before the date of determination where the disputed immovable property is located. The immovable property subject to the lawsuit was determined as non-title deed in accordance with the article of the Land Registry Law during the land registry works and finalized in … year. Considering the scope of the file and the fact that the court acted in accordance with the reversal decision complied with by the court and dismissed the lawsuit regarding the part shown with the letter (D) in the sketch by rejecting the request for excess in the first decision given by the court, and that this judgment was not appealed by the plaintiff, and that a judgment was established by taking into account that a procedural vested right was established in favor of the defendant … regarding this part, it was decided to approve the judgment, which was in accordance with the procedure and law, by rejecting the appellate objections that were not deemed appropriate.
(4721 S. Code Art. 713)
Case: The Supreme Court of Appeals was requested by the attorney of the plaintiff … for the review of the judgment established at the end of the hearing of the lawsuit between the parties, and after the acceptance of the appeal petition, which was understood to be in due time, the file was examined and considered:
The plaintiff … attorney claimed that a piece of immovable property in the village of …, the boundaries of which he stated in the petition, was not registered in the title deed, and that the conditions for acquiring immovable property through acquisitive prescription possession were met for the benefit of his client, and requested its registration in the name of his client in accordance with Article 713 of the Civil Code.
The court decided to accept the lawsuit and to register the immovables of 2353 m2 shown with the letter (A) and 12740 m2 shown with the letter (B) on the surveyor’s sketch dated 21.07.2008 in the name of the plaintiff, and the judgment was appealed by …, and the judgment was reversed by the decision of our Chamber dated 07.05.2009 and numbered …/… Main, …/… Decision, referring to the need for incomplete forest and possession research.
Mahkemece, bozma ilamına uyulmasının ardından yapılan yargılama sonucunda davanın kısmen kabulü ile …ili, … ilçesi, … köyünde kain ve kuzeyinde tapulama harici yer ve 533 nolu parsel, doğusunda tapulama harici yer, güneyinde tapulama harici yer, batısında 532 ve 533 nolu parseller ile çevrili fen bilirkişi … … and the immovable property with a surface area of 2353,01 m2 indicated as (A) in the report and sketches dated 12/10/2010 by the survey engineer … … …, … district, … village and surrounded by parcels numbered 537 and 539 on the north, parcels numbered 537 and 539 on the east, the place marked with (B) on the south, the place outside the land plots and the subject of the lawsuit, and parcel numbered 538 on the west. … and Surveyor … … … … … dated 12/10/2010, the immovable property with a surface area of 2757,13 m2 shown with the letter (D) in the report and sketches dated 12/10/2010 shall be registered and registered in the land registry in the name of the plaintiff in accordance with Article 713/1 of the TMK. In accordance with Article 713/1 of the TMK, the registration and registration of the immovable property with a surface area of 2757.13 m2 shown with the letter (D) in the report and sketches dated 12/10/2012 prepared by the surveyor and survey engineer shall be considered as an annex to the decision, and with the decision of the court dated 13.11.2008 and numbered …/… Esas – …/… Decision numbered …/… Decision numbered …/…, the surveyor … … and … … dated 21. It was decided to determine that the decision regarding the rejection of the request for the registration of the 33298,50 m2 section marked with the letter (C) in the sketch dated 07.07.2008 became final without appeal, and the judgment was appealed by the defendant …’s attorney, and the Chamber’s decision dated 24.06. 2013 dated and …/… Esas – …/…. With the judgment numbered Decision, the appeal objections regarding the part of the immovable property shown with the letter (A) in the sketch were rejected and the judgment, which was in accordance with the procedure and law, was approved, and the case was rejected about the part of the immovable property shown with the letter (D) in the sketch of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit by saying that the claim for the excess was rejected before the reversal in terms of the appeal objections regarding the part of the immovable property shown with the letter (D) in the sketch, and since the plaintiff real person did not appeal the judgment before the reversal, the defendant for the part of the immovable property shown with the letter (D) in the sketch … The court reversed the decision by stating that a procedural vested right has been established in favor of the court, and while the court should have decided to reject the lawsuit filed for the part of the disputed immovable property shown with the letter (D) in the sketch, the decision to accept it is a violation of the rule of procedural vested right.
As a result of the trial held after the court complied with the reversal decision, it was decided to dismiss the lawsuit filed regarding the place shown with the letter (D) in the report and sketches dated 12/10/2010 of the science expert … … and the survey engineer … …, and the judgment was appealed by the attorney of the plaintiff …..
According to the statement in the petition, the lawsuit is related to the registration of the immovable property without title deed pursuant to Article 713 of the Civil Code.
There was no forest cadastre before the date of determination in the location of the disputed immovable property. The immovable property subject to the lawsuit was determined to be excluded from the land survey in accordance with Article 2 of the Land Survey Law during the land survey and finalized on 23.01.1981.
According to the scope of the file and the fact that the court acted in accordance with the reversal decision complied with by the court and rejected the lawsuit regarding the section shown with the letter (D) in the sketch by rejecting the request for more in the first decision given by the court and that this judgment was not appealed by the plaintiff and that the judgment was established by taking into account that a procedural vested right was established in favor of the defendant … regarding this section, the objections of appeal that are not deemed appropriate are rejected and the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and law, is APPROVED, and the following confirmation fee is charged to the appellant 21. 04.2016 with unanimous vote.