Republic of Turkey Supreme Court
4. Law Office
Basis: 2019/ 11656 Decision: 2020 / 2597
Decision Date: 18.02.2020
SUMMARY: By asking the parties on what date the immovable subject to the lawsuit was actually seized (in terms of month, day and year), if it is understood that the date of seizure to be determined is between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983, it is understood that the date of confiscation is after 04.11.1983. It is not considered correct that it is not thought that the relative attorney’s fee and the relative expenditure should be determined in the event of a loss.
between the parties
without expropriation>
At the end of the trial due to the lawsuit for the collection of the seized immovable value: Examining the above-mentioned verdict on the acceptance of the case by the Supreme Court, with the petitions given by the attorneys of the parties, after the documents in the file were read and the dispute was understood, the necessity was discussed and considered:
DECISION
Case,
without expropriation
It is related to the request for the collection of the value of the seized immovable property.
In accordance with the reversal decision, the judgment was established by examining and taking action; The decision was appealed by the attorneys of the parties.
Although the court complied with the judgment of reversal, the requirements for annulment were not fully fulfilled. Namely;
1) With the interim decision of the court dated 11.01.2017, the part of the immovable that is the subject of the lawsuit, which was legally confiscated,
Considering that it is separated from the file at hand, as a de facto road of 445,63 m²
While the price of the seized part should be decided, it also covers the separated parts and it is decided in a way that exceeds the demand,
2) According to the decision of the HMK numbered 6100, numbered 177 and Supreme Court Jurisprudence Unification General Assembly, dated 06/05/2016 and numbered 2015/1 Principle – 2016/1, it is not possible to increase the result of the request by means of improvement after annulment. Excess rights must be requested by filing an additional lawsuit.
In this regard, the petition requested
without expropriation
hand
While it is necessary to decide on the throwing price, it should be decided in writing,
3) Failure to consider that the encumbrance on the subject property should be reflected in the price,
4) The actual date of the immovable
It will be determined by asking the parties (in terms of month, day and year)
hand
If it is understood that the date of dismissal is between 09.10.1956 and 04.11.1983,
hand
If it is understood that the expulsion date is after 04.11.1983, it is not considered that the relative attorney’s fee and the relative fee should be awarded,
It was not seen correctly.
Since the objections of the parties’ attorneys were valid, it was unanimously decided on 18.02.2020 that the verdict be overturned pursuant to Article 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons explained, the refund of the appeal fees collected in advance from the parties when requested, and that the appeal fees be recorded as revenue to the Treasury.
