Request For The Determination That The House In Question Was Built By The Plaintiff And For This To Be Recorded In The Land Registry
CANCELLATION OF TITLE DEED AND REGISTRATION CASE – REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION THAT THE HOUSE IN QUESTION WAS BUILT BY THE PLAINTIFF
AND ITS ENTRY IN THE LAND REGISTER
– THE CLAIM THAT THE ALLEGATION REGARDING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION
CANNOT BE ENTERED IN THE LAND REGISTER
DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A PROVISION
SUMMARY: Although the plaintiff requested that the fact that the two-story house on parcel no. 903 was built with his own funds
be recorded in the land registry, since it is not possible to record the claim regarding the subject property
in the land registry, it can only be indicated in the declarations section of the land registry.
(Turkish Civil Code, Article 919)
Case: Following the trial conducted due to the dispute between the parties, the Taşköprü Civil Court of First Instance
issued a decision on December 7, 1983, numbered 25-642, dismissing the case. Upon the plaintiff’s request for the review of this decision,
(…The parties are co-owners of the property in question, parcel number 903. According to the file
contents, the plaintiff requested the determination that the two-story house located on the northern side of the parcel belongs to him and the registration of this determination in the land registry. The court ruled to dismiss the case on the grounds that the disputed building was constructed with funds from the estate
and the claim could not be proven.
However, the local expert and the experts Mehmet Y., Yusuf Y., Mehmet K., and the plaintiff’s witnesses Kasım and Hüseyin unequivocally stated that the house in question was built by the plaintiff with his own funds
after the death of the co-heir Raşit in 1940 and the external division among the heirs.
These experts and witnesses clearly stated that the disputed house was built with funds from the estate. By disregarding this evidence, the court erroneously overturned the decision based on the statement of the defendant Elife’s husband, witness Mustafa Ö., that the disputed building was constructed using funds from the deceased’s estate, Elife’s husband, witness Mustafa Ö., was relied upon in writing to dismiss the case
is not appropriate…) and the case was remanded for retrial.
Following the retrial, the court upheld its previous decision.
After the General Assembly of the Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the appeal against the decision to uphold the previous ruling was filed within the time limit, and after reviewing the documents in the file, the following decision was reached:
Decision: The plaintiff requested that it be determined that the house in question was built by him and that this be recorded in the land registry.
The court rejected the claim, accepting that it could not be proven. The evidence gathered in the file
and corroborating each other proves that the plaintiff built the house himself.
Although the plaintiff requested that the two-story house on parcel no. 903 be registered in the land registry as having been built with his own funds, since it is not possible to register the claim regarding the house in question in the land registry, it can only be indicated in the declarations section of the land registry.
Therefore, based on the evidence gathered,
Therefore, based on the evidence gathered, it is understood that the house in question was built by the plaintiff; while the decision to accept the case and record that the disputed house was built by the plaintiff in the declarations section of the land registry should have been made, the decision to reject the case is contrary to the Rules of Procedure and
the Law. For this reason, the decision to reject the case should be overturned.
Result: The plaintiff’s appeal objections are accepted, and the decision to uphold the ruling is overturned for the reasons explained above and indicated in the Special Chamber’s
overturning judgment. The decision was made unanimously.