Supreme Court of the Republic of Turkey
1. Legal Department
Basis: 2014/200
Decision: 2014/12761
Decision Date: 02.07.2014
ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF DEED REGISTRATION AND COMPENSATION – ATTORNEY’S FEE WHICH IS WORTH IT DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DISPLAYED VALUE AND THE ACTUAL VALUE OF Immovable properties, AND ATTORNEY’S FEE WON’T REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN TO THE JURISDICTION – IMPOSSIBILITY FOR THE FEE FOR THE DEFENDANT
SUMMARY: Due to the difference between the shown value and the actual value of the immovables subject to the lawsuit, on the grounds that the plaintiff was wrong in his case and that the attorney’s fee would not be required in favor of the defendant, the case value was accepted as ………….. TL and with the deduction of ………… TL, which was included in the scope of acceptance. It is not correct that the remaining ………… TL has been ruled on incomplete power of attorney for the benefit of the defendant M.
(1136 S. K. Art. 166)
Lawsuit and Decision: At the end of the title deed cancellation, registration and compensation lawsuit between the parties, the decision of the local court regarding the partial acceptance of the case was appealed by the defendant M.’s attorney, the defendants K. and F.’s attorney within the legal period, and the file was examined. his report was read, his explanations were listened to, the need was discussed and considered;
The lawsuit is about the cancellation and registration of the title deed based on the legal reason of abuse of power of attorney, if not, the request for compensation. in the fact that it was rejected due to abandonment due to lack of subject and therefore no attorney’s fee was ruled in favor of K.; rejecting the lawsuit filed against F. and against M. for the 1/3 flat price in terms of their claims against the defendant M., as it is not fixed; There is no mistake in the decision to partially accept the title deed cancellation and registration case in terms of other apartments requested from the defendant M. All the objections of the defendant K. and the other appeals of the defendant M.
Dismissal of F.’s appeal for waiver, since it appears that defendant F. has waived his appeal.
However, since the plaintiff’s attorney declared a value of 1,000,000.-TL as the sum of the value of the flats requested from the defendants and the compensation amount, with the explanation petition, and the fee was paid on this value, in the immovable no. 292 block 20, parcel no. A Block 25, Block A. 98, B Block 37, and the total value of the 53/71 share of the B Block 32, independent section total value of 409.000.00.-TL, the cost of 1 flat and 67.500 While the deduction of the total compensation amount of .00.-TL from the lawsuit value of 1.000.000,00.-TL and the remaining amount, the attorney’s fee should be decided in favor of the defendant M. If the value is shown higher in the lawsuit petition, it is stated that the plaintiff is wrong in the lawsuit due to the difference between the displayed value of the immovable property and the actual value and a power of attorney in favor of the defendant. It is not true that the value of the lawsuit was accepted as 494.500.00.-TL and the deduction of 409.000.-TL, which was included in the scope of acceptance, and the remaining 85.000.00.
The objection of the defendant M.’s attorney regarding this aspect is valid. With its acceptance, it was unanimously decided on 02.07.2014 that the judgment be overturned pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, for the reason explained (by sending the provisional article 3 of the Law No. 6100) and that the advance fee be returned to the appellant.
