Law Department 2014/3824 E. , 2015/12948 K.
“Case Law Text”
COURT: SALIHLI 2. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Date: 05/11/2013
Number: 2011/309-2013/808
Cancellation decertification, if not, at the end of the case of tenkis, the decision made by the Local Court regarding the rejection of the original case due to animosity, the decision made by the attorney of the plaintiffs of the combined case and the lawyer of the defendant during the legal period, while the hearing was appealed to the willing, the acting lawyer who appealed on Tuesday 10.11.2015, which was determined as the day of the hearing, G….. S……..with other appellant plaintiffs B.. He.. et al. acting Attorney E……. G….. V.. M.. Izmir Regional Directorate Deputy lawyer ş…….. E…….. G…….. the plaintiffs, who appealed despite the invitation notice, were a.. G.. et al. the acting lawyer and other plaintiff nobles did not come, in their absence, the hearing began, the oral statements of the deputies who came after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, which is understood to have been issued and registered during the period, were heard, the hearing was reported to be over, the work was left to the decision. Bilahare examination judge……………the report, edited by l, was read and received. Dossier examined and considered:
-DECISION-
The original and combined lawsuit relates to requests for tenkis if the title deed is canceled and registration is not possible.
In the original case, the plaintiffs, the heirs, Sh.. K..’s Salihli Sart Ç…… K……….. Their shares in the limited liability company, S…………… Share Transfer Agreement dated 11.01.2011 organized handed to the relatives of the defendant, the assignment collusive estate for sale and is Muris you don’t need to sell goods, noting the absence of the defendant’s purchasing power, muris collusion with the cancellation of the transfer and assignment of the process because of the aforementioned shares, in proportion to their shares of the inheritance tenkis registration is not possible if you are asked to decide.
./..
In the combined case, the plaintiffs repeated the same claims, on the other hand, that the shares of the company were not transferred in accordance with the legal form, 520 of the Turkish Commercial Code. 18 of the Code of Obligations. in accordance with the provision of the article, they claimed that the transfer of shares of the company should be canceled, because of Muris muvazaa, they requested that the cancellation of shares of the company registered on behalf of the defendant be registered in the proportion of their shares, if not possible, a decision on criticism, during the trial, the shares of the company subject to the lawsuit be decided by muris Sh.. K..root inheritance, which is the wife of H…… S……. K………’they reported that it belonged to a, that with the will he made, the shares left only the right to usufruct to his wife, and that the transfer of shares to the defendant was muwazaali and superstitious.
Basic administration of intervening foundations, root muris H….. S…… K……….in a will dated 17.03.1966, which he made, he had the purpose of establishing a foundation, his wife Sh on the assets of murisin.. K..claiming that he has the right to usufruct until he dies, but he does not have the right to ownership, with his death, the shares of the company belong to Terek, the sale to the defendant is an absolute superstition, with the cancellation of the shares of the company on behalf of the defendant Muris H…… S……………………… K………’he asked for a decision to return flour to Terek.
The defendant stated that the shares of the company are securities and that the cancellation of the shares based on muris muvaza cannot be requested.. K..’s due to the lack of heirs has the rights to sue if the share sale is real, and learned to work in the company for a long time and jobs, school, but after finishing the spa today from the company and started doing teaching to work for the company that is becoming, to know the status mirasbirakan sell their shares when he decided to offer himself has made the allegations that have been made over the nominal value of share sales are not true, noting that in the cases involved, and defended the dismissal of the original lawsuit.
By the court, the ownership of the company share transferred to the defendant is muris Ş.. K..not belonging to the root muris H…… S…… K…….it belongs to, P.. K..on his death, the will of 17.03.1966 made by Root muris should be acted in accordance with the case for the cancellation of the Will was rejected, so sh.. K..’s lack of authority in terms of the transfer of company shares, sales process with absolute nullity for the reason that they are false due to the animosity of actual case, combined with a denial of the merits of the case, the original case involved the administration’s contention with the foundations of the subject of the acceptance of H shares…… S……. K……… the decision was made to return terekesine, the provision was appealed only by the attorney of the plaintiffs and the attorney of the defendant in the actual case.
From the contents of the file and the collected evidence; born in 1320, kökmirasbrakan H……. S….. N…..with his childless death on 11.08.1972, his wife s.. K.. with brother S……. Y…….’s left s.. K..24.10.1972 date, 1972/1665 basis, 1972/1465 decision of the Salihli Court of First Instance held on the application of the declaration of succession; root muris H….. 4 Shares of Sabri’s inheritance are accepted, with two dry properties and ¼ full ownership…. Y……….’a, 2/4 with the usufruct right of ownership, ¼ of ownership.. K..’where it is decided that it has an affiliation, on the other hand; H………. In the determination that Sabri’s savings on establishing the foundation in his will made on March 17, 1966 were invalid, the case filed by the heir Seher stars on 08.01.1973 was rejected by the decision of the Salihli Civil Court of First Instance dated 19.03.1974, 1973/53, 1974/205, the heir Sh.. K..as a result of the request made by Salihli Magistrate Court 04.03.1977 date, 1972/150 Esas, 1973/97-2 D. Business decision with the decision of; ”S…….. S……. O………….. In accordance with the will of the shares belonging to the guest in the Hot Springs, the wife of savings and usufruct Sh.. K..” it was decided that it belonged to, that it should be written to the company mentioned in this regard”, again the heir.. K..”UN” Muris wife H…….. S……. K………’in his will dated 17.03.1966, he bequeathed that he could benefit from his assets until he died,
../…
the case for the cancellation of the will filed by the other heir was rejected, despite this, they registered 8 pieces of real estate left over from muristen in the names of the defendant heirs”, claiming that the deed was canceled and the decision to delay on behalf of muris was made as a result of the case filed on 22.11.2001 in the first decision of the Supreme Court 2. 06.06.2002 date and 2002/6282 basis of the legal department, 2002/7658 with the declaration ” he wanted to establish a foundation to cover all of the will of the heir dated 1966, appointed a tenfiz officer of the will. As the case concerns the administration of the foundations directly, the plaintiff’s right to usufruct will be raised after the foundation is established. In that case, the case should be directed to the administration of foundations, again the will of the officers of enforcement Salihli Mufti M…….. N…………. S……. Cami Y……….. and T…….. Association President S………..n G……..(decision to merge Case Law No. 16/25 of 17.12.1955). On the grounds of corruption, the plaintiff’s administration of foundations, P……. H…… G………, M……. N……. and Salihli Mufti K………. He………. repeating the same claims against him on 07.10.2003, the subject of the lawsuit is the registration of 8 pieces of real estate on behalf of the foundation administration in accordance with the will, again on real estate in accordance with the will.. K.. Salihli 2 as a result of the trial in which the case filed by the willingness to decide the establishment of the right to usufruct in his favor was combined with the case file that was re-recorded on the violation. 25.03.2004 2003/270 court date and is based on the decision 2004/215; the main and coupled with acceptance of the case, a subject of debate in succession, with the cancellation of the registration of immovable 8 piece istirake H muris………… S……………. It was decided to register guest shares again on behalf of muris, the said decision was appealed by the defendants ‘foundations administration, which merged with the defendants’ attorney, but the appeals were not considered in place and were finalized on 21.09.2005, muris Sh.. K..’s S……… S……….. O……. N………. 32 shares in Limited liability company, Salihli 3. Born in 1928, which the notary public transferred by selling to the defendant with the ”Limited Company Share Transfer Agreement” dated 11.01.2011.. K..with the death of 01.02.2011, the plaintiffs of the main case, the defendant and his heirs out of the case remain, the root muris Hussein Sabri guest’s heir, S……………………….with his death on 17.11.1988, it is understood that the plaintiffs of the case, who were also left behind, remained as heirs.
As is known; Turkish Law No. 743 74. article ” The Foundation is established by official promissory note or will, and the residence of the foundation is acquired by registration in the register held before the court of First Instance. The court ruled that the registration matter V.. M..resen notifies you to register in the central register.”The same principles are protected in the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, adopted on 22.11.2001, and the law 102. in its article, ” the will to establish a foundation is explained by official promissory notes or savings related to death. The foundation becomes a legal entity by registering in the register held before the settlement court. The establishment of the foundation by official promissory note through a representative depends on the fact that the authority of representation is granted by a document arranged by a notary and that the goods and rights to be specific for the purpose of the foundation are determined in this document. Application to the court, if the official promissory note is issued by the foundation; if the foundation is based on savings related to death, on the notification of the interested parties or the magistrate who opened the will, or V.. M..NCE is made in resen. The court referred to takes the necessary measures for the protection of property and rights.”his decision has been made.
