1. Legal Department 2014/3824 E. , 2015/12948 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT: SALIHLI 2. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
DATE : 05/11/2013
NUMBER : 2011/309-2013/808
The decisiveness of the original case by the local court regarding the rejection of the original case due to hostility, the decision of the combined case regarding the rejection of the combined case was appealed by the plaintiffs’ attorney and the defendant’s attorney during the legal period, but the day of the hearing was determined as Tuesday, 10.11.2015 upon notification made by the appellant’s deputy Attorney G….. P…….and other appellant plaintiffs B.. He.. et al. deputy Attorney E……. G….. with the Main Involvement V.. M.. Izmir Regional Directorate Deputy Attorney S…….. E…….. G…….. they have arrived, the plaintiffs A, who were appealed despite the invitation notification.. G.. et al. the deputy Lawyer and other plaintiff nobles did not come, in their absence, the trial began, after it was decided to accept the appeal petition, which was granted and registered during the period, the oral statements of the deputies were listened to, the hearing was reported to be over, the work was left to the decision. Bilahare Audit Judge…………… the report edited by l was read, his opinion was received. The case was reviewed and discussed as necessary:
-DECISION-
The original and the merged case are related to the requests of tenkis if the cancellation and registration of the title deed is not possible.
In the actual case, the plaintiffs, the inheritors, Inc.. K..’s Salihli Sart Ç…..K……….. Their shares in the limited liability company, S…………… Share Transfer Agreement dated 11.01.2011 organized handed to the relatives of the defendant, the assignment collusive estate for sale and is Muris you don’t need to sell goods, noting the absence of the defendant’s purchasing power, muris collusion with the cancellation of the transfer and assignment of the process because of the aforementioned shares, in proportion to their shares of the inheritance tenkis registration is not possible if you are asked to decide.
./..
The plaintiffs in the merged case repeated the same claims, on the other hand, that the shares of the company were not transferred in accordance with the legal form, 520 of the Turkish Commercial Code. violation of Article 18 of the Code of Obligations. arguing that the transfer of the company’s shares should be canceled in accordance with the provision of the article, they requested that the cancellation of the company’s shares registered on behalf of the defendant due to the muris agreement be registered in the proportion of their shares and, if not possible, decided on a review, and during the trial, muris Ş. of the company’s shares subject to litigation.. K..’s wife mirasbirakanl the root to H…… S……. K………’ they informed him that it belonged to a, that he had left the usufruct right of the shares only to his wife with the will he had made, and that the transfer of the shares to the defendant was contemptible and superstitious.
Asli Interventional Foundations administration, kök muris H….. S…… K……….according to the bequest dated 17.03.1966, which was made by Murisin, his wife Ş. on the assets of murisin had the purpose of establishing a foundation.. K..claiming that the usufruct right exists until the death of the defendant, but there is no property right, with his death the company shares belong to the estate, the sale to the defendant is absolutely false and superstitious, muris H…….S……………………… K………’ he asked to be decided on the return of flour to his country.
The defendant stated that the shares of the company are securities and that cancellation cannot be requested on the basis of mutual consent, and the plaintiffs of the merged lawsuit are Ş.. K..’s due to the lack of heirs has the rights to sue if the share sale is real, and learned to work in the company for a long time and jobs, school, but after finishing the spa today from the company and started doing teaching to work for the company that is becoming, to know the status mirasbirakan sell their shares when he decided to offer himself has made the allegations that have been made over the nominal value of share sales are not true, noting that in the cases involved, and defended the dismissal of the original lawsuit.
The court considers that the ownership of the share of the company transferred to the defendant is muris Ş.. K..’not a root of H belonging Muris…… S…… K…….., to which it belongs, Inc.. K..upon the death of kök muris, it was necessary to act in accordance with the will made by kök muris dated 17.03.1966, the lawsuit filed for the cancellation of the will was dismissed, therefore Sh.. K..based on the fact that the company has no authority to transfer its shares, the sale process is superstitious with absolute lies, and the main case is essentially rejected due to hostility, the main case is the acceptance of the case of the main intervening Foundations Administration and the shares subject to dispute H…………………….. K……… decided to return to the estate, only the principal attorney with the decision in the case was appealed by the defendant to the plaintiffs attorney.
From the contents of the file and the evidence collected; rokmirasbirakan H., who was born in 1320……… P….. N…..with the death of the childless on 11.08.1972, he left his wife as the heiress of Ş.. K.. and his brother S……. Y…….where ’s remains, Fig.. K..on the application of the Salihli First Instance Law Court dated 24.10.1972, based on 1972/1665, with the addition of probate Decision No. 1972/1465; root muris H….. By accepting 4 shares of Sabri’s inheritance, it is possible to obtain ¼ of the full ownership with two dry ownership…. Y……….’a, with the usufruct right of 2/4 of the property, ¼ of the property Sh.. K..on the other hand, where the belonging of ‘a’ is decided; H………. In order to determine that Sabri’s savings on establishing a foundation in his will made on March 17, 1966 were invalid, the case filed by the heir Seher Yildizlar on March 08, 1973 was dismissed by the decision of the Salihli First Instance Court of Law dated March 19, 1973, 1974, based on 1973/53, 1974/205, the heir Ş.. K..as a result of the request made by the Salihli Magistrate’s Court dated 04.03.1977, Based on 1972/150, 1973/97-2 D. With the decision of the Business Decision number; “S……… P…… O………….. The spouse of the savings and usufruct of the shares belonging to S………. Guest in the hot springs in accordance with the will of Ş.. K..it has been decided that it belongs to the company, and that it should be written to the company mentioned in this regard,”heiress Ş.. K..”Muris’s wife H…….. P…… K………’ by his will dated 03/17/1966, he bequeathed that he could benefit from his assets until he died,
../…
the first decision made on 22.11.2001 as a result of the lawsuit filed by the other heir regarding the cancellation of the title deed and the decision to expedite it on behalf of muris, stating that the case of revocation of the will was rejected, despite this, they registered the 8 pieces of real estate remaining from muris in the names of the defendant heirs by obtaining a probate order, the Court of Cassation 2. With the decree No. 2002/7658 of the Law Department dated 06.06.2002 and based on 2002/6282, “The testator’s will of 1966 requested the establishment of a foundation to cover the entire term of the will, appointed a probate officer. As the case directly concerns the Administration of the Foundations, the right of the plaintiff to usufruct will be raised after the foundation is established. In that case, the case should be referred to the Administration of Foundations, probate officers, Salihli Mufti M……… N…………. S……. Cami Y……….. and T…….. President of the Association S………..n G…….if any, it is necessary to request a sample of the will and the presentation of evidence from these people, collect evidence, make a decision based on its result (Decision to Combine Case Law No. 16/25 of 17.12.1955). Without observing this aspect, the establishment of a judgment with incomplete research and examination and again with an incomplete adversary required a violation”upon violation of the grounds, the plaintiff’s Administration of Foundations, P………. H……G………, M…… N……. and the Mufti of Salihli K………. He………. repeating the same allegations against him on 07.10.2003, the registration of the 8 pieces of immovable property that he made the subject of the lawsuit on behalf of the Foundations Administration in accordance with the will, again on the immovable property in accordance with the will of Sh.. K.. as a result of the trial, which was held and the case filed by the bidder to be decided on the usufruct facility in his favor was merged with the case file that was re-recorded upon the overturning of Salihli 2. 25.03.2004 2003/270 court date and is based on the decision 2004/215; the main and coupled with acceptance of the case, a subject of debate in succession, with the cancellation of the registration of immovable 8 piece istirake H muris………… S……………. The guest shares were decided to be registered again on behalf of muris, the decision of the defendant Foundations administration, which merged with the defendants’ deputy, appealed, but the appeal requests were not considered in place and were finalized on 21.09.2005, muris Ş.. K..’s S……… S……….. O……. N………. 32 Shares in the Limited Liability Company, Salihli 3. Ş., born in 1928, which the Notary Public transferred by selling to the defendant with the ”Limited Liability Company Share Transfer Agreement” dated 11.01.2011.. K..with the death of ’on 01.02.2011, the plaintiffs, the defendant and the non-plaintiffs of the original case remained as heirs, the heir of the root muris Huseyin Sabri Konuk. ……………………..it is understood that the plaintiffs of the case, who were also united by the death of on 17.11.1988, remain as heirs.
As is known; Article 74 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 743. in the article ”The Foundation is established by an official deed or by will, and the residence of the foundation acquires a legal entity by registration in the register maintained before the court of first instance. The Court considers the issue of registration V.. M..the central registry office shall notify you officially to register.” The same principles are protected in the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 adopted on 22.11.2001 and referred to in law No. 102. also in the article; “The will to establish a foundation is explained by an official deed or by savings due to death. The Foundation acquires a legal entity by registration in the register maintained before the settlement court. The fact that the process of establishing a foundation with an official deed is carried out through a representative depends on the fact that the authority of representation has been granted by a notarized document and the goods and rights that will be specific to the purpose of the foundation have been determined in this document. Application to the court is made by the foundation if an official deed has been issued; if the foundation is based on savings due to death, upon notification of the relevant persons or the magistrate who opened the will, or V.. M..this is done officially. The applied court officially takes the necessary measures to protect the goods and rights.” the judgment has been given.