Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
2. Legal Department
Basis: 2016/6780
Decision: 2016/12633
Decision Date: 28.06.2016
CASE OF CONTRIBUTION RECEIPT – DECISION FOR NO DECISION FOR THE CONTRIBUTION REGARDING IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE PROPERTY SEPARATION REGIME – NO DECISION TO AGREE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT APPLICABLE FROM THE DATE OF THE CASE – H
SUMMARY: Since the lawsuit is about the contribution receivables related to the immovables acquired during the period of separation of property, the amount of 5,000 TL requested in the petition is valid from the date of the lawsuit, 10.04.2008; It was not correct to decide that interest will be charged to the total amount of 31,611.00 TL, effective from the date of the lawsuit. The defendant’s objections to the interest regarding the interest are valid for the reason explained and the provision should be reversed in terms of the interest-related part, but since this issue does not require a retrial, it was necessary to correct this part of the judgment and approve it.(HUMK Article 438/7)
(1086 S. K. Art. 438)
Litigation and Decision: The judgment given by the local court at the end of the trial between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, in terms of the contribution of the defendants by …; On the other hand, the claimant’s refusal of the title deed cancellation and registration request by way of participation and appeal in terms of the amount of the contribution fee, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
1- ) The defendant has appealed in terms of the contribution fee which has been accepted, and the plaintiff has appealed in terms of the rejection of the deed cancellation and registration request by way of participation. The request for appeal by participation is closely tied to the original appeal request. The defendant does not have an appeal regarding the title deed cancellation and registration case. In this case, since the appeal request of the plaintiff woman for the cancellation and registration of the title deed by participation cannot be examined, it was necessary to reject the appeal request regarding this aspect.
2-) As for the examination of the appeal objections of the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the contribution fee;
a) According to the writings in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based and the lawful reasons, and in particular that there is no mistake in the appraisal of the evidence, all of the plaintiff’s objections, which are outside the scope of the defendant’s subparagraph below, are unfounded.
b) Since the lawsuit is about the contribution receivables related to the immovables acquired during the period of separation of property, the amount of 5,000 TL requested in the petition for interest is valid from the date of the lawsuit, 10.04.2008; It was not correct to decide that interest will be charged to the total amount of 31,611.00 TL, effective from the date of the lawsuit. The defendant’s objections to the interest regarding the interest are valid for the reason explained and the provision should be reversed in terms of the interest-related part, but since this issue does not require a retrial, it was necessary to correct this part of the judgment and approve it.(HUMK Article 438/7)
Conclusion: Instead of removing the words “31,611.00 TL from the defendant, together with the legal interest from the defendant … to the plaintiff” in the 2nd paragraph of the judgment paragraph of the reasoned decision for the reason indicated in the 2/b paragraph above, instead of the words “31,611, 00 TL total contribution receivable will be collected from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, for 5.000 TL of this amount, 10.04.2008 lawsuit, for 26.611.00 TL, legal interest valid from the 01.12.2014 correction date” is written in this part of the provision. corrected, the other parts of the appeal be APPROVED for the reason explained in paragraph 2/a above, the appeal of the plaintiff against the title deed cancellation and registration request is REJECTED for the reason indicated in the 1st paragraph above, the following fee is charged to Y., the advance fee is deducted and 143.50 TL. Since the appeal fee is paid in advance, it has been unanimously decided that there is no need to charge any other fees, and that the appeal fee will be returned to A. 28.06.2016
