T.R. SUPREME COURT
3. Law Office
Basis: 2016/10495
Decision: 2016/9366
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
ACTION FOR DAMAGES – APPLICANT WAS CLAIMED FOR LEGAL REASON FOR JUDGMENTAL ENRICHMENT – RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES IS THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL COURTS – THE PROVISION IS OVERFINED
SUMMARY: The claimant’s claim is not within the scope of the “pecuniary compensation based on the breach of the engagement” claim regulated in the article of TMK, but is related to the claim based on the legal reason for unjust enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancee, but also against the heirs of the title deed owner of the immovable property in question, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts. As such, the court should enter into the merits of the matter and make a decision in accordance with the result, but otherwise, giving a decision of non-jurisdiction is against the procedure and the law and requires annulment.
Litigation and Decision: As a result of the court’s judgment of the claim between the parties, upon the appeal by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit of the judgment rendering the dismissal of the case due to lack of jurisdiction; After the decision to accept the appeal petition, the papers in the file were read and the necessary consideration was given:
In the petition of the plaintiff’s attorney; from the defendants … that their client and the defendants were engaged, that the house that the parties will live together in when they get married has been allocated to the plaintiff … and the defendant … by the other defendants, who are the mother and siblings of …, that the client plaintiff has made some useful and compulsory expenses on this real estate, but upon the deterioration of the engagement, his client pays the cost of these renovations. Stating that the client did not make any payment despite his request from the defendants from …, and all the heirs of the testator … were shown as defendants because the immovable in question was registered in the name of the defendants … It has demanded and sued the defendants to decide on the collection jointly and severally, together with the legal interest that will accrue from the date of
In the reply petition, the counsel of the defendants; the case is about the claim for receivable arising from the breach of engagement, the Family Court has the duty to hear the case, and in this case, the enmity can only be directed against the plaintiff and the defendant fiancee.
The court decided that the cost demanded by the plaintiff from the defendants was an expense arising from the engagement contract, the legal reason for the breach of the engagement contract was the basis of the expenses subject to the lawsuit, and the Family Court was responsible for dealing with this case, by sending the HMK 114/1-c article on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to article /2, it was decided to be rejected due to the procedure, and the judgment was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the concrete case; claiming that during the period when the defendant was engaged to …, the defendant made some useful and compulsory expenses on the real estate allocated to them by the defendant’s family for their residence after marriage and registered in the name of the defendant’s successor in the title deed, and that these expenses that increased the value of the real estate due to the deterioration of the engagement requested a refund.
Accordingly, the claimant’s claim is not within the scope of the “pecuniary compensation based on the breach of engagement” claim regulated in Article 120 of the TMK, but is related to the claim based on the legal reason for unjust enrichment. As a matter of fact, the lawsuit was filed not only against the plaintiff’s fiancee, but also against the heirs of the title deed owner of the immovable property in question, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is within the duty of the general courts.
In this case, while the court should give a decision in accordance with the result by going into the merits of the case, giving a written decision of non-jurisdiction is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires annulment.
Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 16.06.2016 that the judgment in written form was inaccurate and the appeal objections were valid due to these reasons, without considering the principles explained above, and that the judgment be OVERFINED pursuant to Article 428 of the HUMK, and that the appeal fee in advance be returned to the appellant upon request.
TAGS: THE APPLICANT HAS A CLAIM BASED ON LEGAL REASON FOR JUDGMENTAL ENRICHMENT – RESOLUTION OF THE DISPUTE IS THE DUTY OF THE GENERAL COURTS
