The Evidence On Which The Decision Is Based And There Is No Inaccuracy In The Appraisal Of Evidence – Decision Regarding The Appeal Objections Not Being Relevant
T.C. JUDICIARY
16th Civil Chamber
Main: 2015/5675
Decision: 2015/13516
Date of Decision: 17.11.2015
DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION CASE – THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY IN THE EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE DECISION IS BASED AND IN THE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE – THE OBJECTIONS TO THE APPEAL ARE NOT GROUNDLESS – CONFIRMATION OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: In the case regarding the cancellation and registration of the title deed, there is no inconsistency in the content of the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, the reasons in accordance with the law, and the appreciation of the evidence. It has been decided to approve the judgment, which is in accordance with the procedure and law, by rejecting the objections of appeal that are not in place.
(1136 S. K. art. 164)
Case and Judgment: The judgment rendered as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested to be examined by the Court of Cassation with a hearing; on the day and time set for the hearing, the appellant N…. C… etc. attorneys A..O.. and C.. Ç… and Attorneys M.. and Ş.. C… etc. attorneys G..C.. D… came. The hearing started against the faces of those who came. After the oral statements of the parties were heard, the hearing was declared over. The examination report and the documents in the file were read in due time:
In the reversal decision of the Court of Cassation, in summary; “the common heir M… and the close heir of the plaintiffs, Ö… C.. ‘s certificate of inheritance showing the last heirs, ensuring the participation of all heirs in the case in accordance with the method or appointing a representative to the estate, listening to the witnesses of the parties at the beginning of the immovable property, what and to whom the immovable belonged before, by whom and how it was used, by whom this place, which is the subject of dispute, is still possessed and disposed of by whom, Determining who has the right of superior use, eliminating the contradiction between the statements, if any, removing the contradiction between the statements, bringing the cadastral minutes and the last land registry records related to the immovables numbered 417, 467, 495 and 498 parcels, which were made the subject of the lawsuit in the Cadastral Court and claimed to be inherited from the same root heir, and taking them into consideration in the solution of the dispute, focusing on the validity of the sale deeds dated 01. 09.1960 and 11.09.1967 dated deeds of sale on which the defendants are based, and to have the technical expert mark the area and boundaries of the land by applying them to the land as required, and to discuss whether the answer given by the defendants to the lawsuit filed in the Cadastral Court regarding the immovables subject to the lawsuit is binding for them or not”. The court decided to dismiss the lawsuit at the end of the trial conducted by complying with the reversal order; the judgment was appealed by the attorneys of the plaintiffs and the representative of the estate of the joint muris M.. C., the representative of the estate appealed.
Conclusion According to the contents of the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the reasons in accordance with the law, and there is no inaccuracy in the appreciation of the evidence, it was unanimously decided on 17.11.2015 to approve the judgment which is in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting the objections of appeal, to take the attorney fee of 1.100,00 TL determined for the Supreme Court of Appeals hearing from the appellant plaintiffs and to give it to the party appealed against who represented himself by proxy at the hearing, and since the appeal decision fee was paid in advance, it was decided unanimously on 17.11.2015 that there was no need to charge a fee.