Supreme Court Decision On Vehicle Registration And Ownership Request 2
T.C.
COURT OF CASSATION
CIVIL CHAMBER
2015/8953
2015/13935
September 10, 2015
2918/Art. 19,20
CASE: Following the trial conducted by the court regarding the determination and registration of vehicle ownership between the parties, the judgment partially accepting the case was appealed by the defendant F.K. within the prescribed time limit. After the appeal petition was accepted, the documents in the file were reviewed and the necessary considerations were made:
DECISION: The plaintiff’s representative stated in the petition that the defendants’ father Yunus and his other brother Mehmet jointly carried out agricultural activities on the real estate inherited from their ancestors in the village of Avşar and also carried out commercial activities in Karabük in the iron and steel industry as uncle, nephew, and brother, and that the agricultural activities in the village were carried out by Yunus on a sharecropping basis. They decided to purchase a tractor necessary for these agricultural activities and, accordingly, jointly purchased the tractor in question from the market in 1998, as per the Civil Court of Peace Case No. 2010/78 concerning the dissolution of joint ownership of movable property. They registered the tractor in Yunus’s name and subsequently drew up a joint ownership protocol deed for the tractor. After Yunus’ death, they intervened in the case for the dissolution of the partnership between his heirs, and they were given time to file a lawsuit for the determination of ownership in the case file in question, therefore, they requested the cancellation of the traffic registration of the tractor with license plate number 19 … They requested that the registration of the tractor with license plate number 272 in Yunus’s name be canceled and that it be determined that the tractor is jointly owned by their client and the other partners, Mehmet and Y. K.’s heirs, as stated in the agreement deed, and that it be registered in their names.
In the response submitted by the defendant Fatma’s representative, it was stated that although the plaintiff’s representative claimed ownership based on the partnership protocol dated 10/26/1998, the partnership did not materialize, was invalid, and was null and void because Y.K. and the elders’ committee did not sign it, and M.K., who was listed as a partner, did not sign it either. Furthermore, if there is a claim of ownership, M.K.’s heirs must file a lawsuit jointly and separately, and therefore, the defendant requested that the unjustified and unfounded lawsuit be dismissed on its merits.
The court found that the parties were siblings and had previously entered into an agreement protocol with a simple deed, that according to this protocol, the parties jointly purchased a tractor, that they registered this tractor in the name of the defendants’ deceased relative for the sake of facilitating official procedures, but that the plaintiff also has a 1/3 share in the tractor, and therefore partially accepted the lawsuit and decided to cancel the ownership registration of the vehicle with license plate number 19 … 272, registered in the name of Y.K. at the Traffic Registration Branch Office in Kargı district, Çorum province, was partially accepted on the grounds that the plaintiff also had a 1/3 share in the tractor, and it was decided to cancel the ownership registration on the license and register it in the name of Y.K. at a rate of 1/3 and Y.K. at a rate of 2/3. The defendant Fatma appealed the ruling.
Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal grounds, and in particular the absence of any inaccuracy in the assessment of the evidence, the defendant’s other appeals are unfounded.
The registration decision is an administrative decision, and the court cannot compel the administration to make a decision regarding registration. Although the plaintiff’s representative requested registration along with the determination of ownership of the tractor in the petition, the court should have limited itself to deciding only on the determination of ownership of the tractor. It was not considered correct for the court to decide on registration along with the determination of ownership, and this necessitated reversal.
CONCLUSION: Accordingly, the written judgment is incorrect as it does not take into account the above-mentioned principles, The appeals are therefore well-founded and accepted, and the judgment is REVERSED pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The advance appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant upon request. This decision was made unanimously on September 10, 2015.