2. Legal Department
Base Number: 2020/1780
Decision Number: 2020/2680
“Justice Text”
COURT :Family Court
TYPE OF CASE: Trinket Claim
The judgment given by the local court at the end of the proceedings of the case between the parties, the date and number of which is shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff woman, the document was read and the necessary was discussed:
The case is a case of jewelry receivables, and the plaintiff woman claimed that the jewelry that was the subject of the lawsuit was taken away by the defendant, while the defendant husband argued that it was taken away by the woman. According to life experiences, it is usual to have this kind of item on the woman or to keep it at home. In other words, leaving them to the possession and protection of the defendant is incompatible with the ordinary situation. On the other hand, jewelry is one of the kinds of items that can be easily stored, transported and taken away. For this reason, it is always possible for the woman who plans to leave the house to take them with her beforehand and to hide them, as well as to take them with her when leaving the house. As a result of this, it is necessary to accept that the jewelery is on the woman under normal conditions. The burden of proving otherwise is on the plaintiff.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff woman; He had a witness heard to prove his claim. Sevilay Gündoğdu, one of the witnesses of the plaintiff, stated that he was the neighbor of the defendant and told him that the jewelry of the defendant had been taken from the plaintiff’s hand. Accordingly, the statements of the plaintiff’s witness are based on the statements of the defendant himself, not what he heard from the plaintiff. In that case, considering that the plaintiff woman proved her claim, while taking into account the expert reports within the scope of the file, the case should be accepted in terms of the jewelery requested and the existence of which has been proven, it was not considered correct to reject the case in writing with a erroneous assessment, and the decision had to be reversed.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously resolved that the appealed judgment be quashed for the reason indicated above, that the appeal fee be returned to the depositor upon request, within 15 days from the notification of this decision, with the possibility of rectification open. 08.06.2020
