The existence of a ban on forced executions between spouses does not prevent spouses from suing each other. Dec.
TC
Supreme Court 14.law office
Decision No: 2003/8009
ecision No: 2004/895
Decision Date: 17.02.2004
At the end of the reasoning made by the defendant’s attorney on the petition filed on 17.2.2002 against the defendants and the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed; at the end of the decision of the Supreme Court on the rejection of the case dated 16.4.2003, the plaintiff’s attorney (….) it was stated that it was deemed necessary to be examined in a trial manner.
The lawsuit relates to the request for cancellation and registration of the title deed under the claim that the real estate subject to the lawsuit was sold to a third party by providing mutual benefits within the marriage union.
By the court, 244 of the Civil Code. in accordance with the article, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the marriage union continues, the property sharing regime between the spouses is not accepted, therefore the plaintiff does not have a de facto Decency license.
The decision has been appealed by the plaintiff.
The immovable property subject to the lawsuit was acquired before the date of 1.1.2002, when the Civil Code numbered 4721 entered into force, and the separation of property regime continues in respect of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit.
165 of the Civil Code No. 743. although the prohibition of forced execution has been decided between the spouses in the article, no regulation has been introduced Decrees that they cannot file a lawsuit against each other due to legal relations. In the same way, there is no prohibition to file a lawsuit in the Civil Code No. 4721.
For this reason, the spouses have the opportunity to file a lawsuit due to the legal savings they have made with each other, and while the decision should be made according to the result that will occur after all the evidence has been collected by entering into the basis of the case, the written establishment of the judgment should not be considered correct and should be overturned.
Conclusion: For the reasons written above, there was no room to examine other issues according to the justification of the violation, the objection fee received in advance was returned to the depositor, and on 17.2.2004, the objections of the plaintiff’s attorney were accepted and it was unanimously decided to overturn the judgment.