TC
Supreme
law office
2015/8953
2015/13935
10.9.2015
2918/m. 19,20
CASE : As a result of the determination of vehicle ownership between the parties and the decision of the registration case by the court, the provision for partial acceptance of the case was definitively removed from the defendants’ side during the Dec upon appeal by the court; after the decision to accept the appeal petition, the document in the file was deemed necessary by reading:
DECISION : The plaintiff’s attorney filed the case; yunus the defendant’s father is acting together with his other brother Mehmet Avşar on the real estate they obtained from agricultural activities in the village of Muris, and the uncle, nephew and brother, both of whom are engaged in Karabük iron and steel management, are required to engage in agricultural activities in the village, to engage in commercial activities by the method of separation, which is necessary for this, yunus’s tractors, agricultural activities and according to the decision to be taken in accordance with the principles given by the criminal court of peace 2010/78,
movable property subject to the lawsuit for the elimination of the partnership with the tractor they bought from the market in 1998, yunus registered the tractor registered on the tractor in the name of the partnership and then issued the protocol deed, they participated in the lawsuit for the elimination of the partnership between yunus’s heirs after his death, the ownership of the file in question was given for the determination of the lawsuit filed after the opening of the tractor with 272 19 plates, therefore, the case for Decoupling the partnership with yunus, the client, DMV, other partners and Mehmet YK’s, upon determining that the immovable property is jointly owned by his heirs, he requested that a decision be made on the registration of their names.
In the response petition submitted by the defendant Fatma attorney; The absence of the signature of the former attorney in the partnership protocol dated 26/10/1998 of the plaintiff attorney YK and the M shown as a partner.K.he demanded that the partnership was not realized despite the fact that he requested ownership due to the absence of the signature of , it was deemed invalid and disappeared, and also that the heirs of MK file lawsuits together and separately if there is a property claim, therefore the lawsuit filed unfairly and unwarranted should be dismissed on the merits.
The parties are brothers and a simple protocol has been arranged in the title deed by the court and transactions have been made under this protocol before, the parties bought a tractor together, the tractor was registered on behalf of Muris in order to be the easiest of official transactions, but the plaintiff also had a share in the tractor, partial registration should be made at a rate of 1/3. traffic commissioner Y . Corum is a mess. with the acceptance of the case by … it was decided to cancel the ownership registration of the vehicle with 272 license plates registered in his name at a rate of 1/3 YK and register it in his name at a rate of 2/3 YK, the verdict was appealed by the defendant Fatma.
According to the articles contained in the file, the evidence on which the decision was based, the reasons for the legal requirement and, in particular, the defendant’s other appeals were not considered in place, since there was no error in the evidence evaluation.
The registration decision is an administrative decision and the court cannot force the administration to take a registration decision. Although the plaintiff’s attorney also requested registration along with the registration of the tractor’s ownership in the lawsuit petition, the court should be satisfied only with the determination of the tractor’s ownership, while it is not correct to decide on registration along with the registration of ownership, due to the violation required.
CONCLUSION: Without taking into account the principles described above, the written judgment is invalid as of this moment, and the decision was made by acceptance, since the avenues of appeal are open for these reasons. nun 428. according to the article, on 10.09.2015, it was unanimously decided to OVERTURN and return the appeal fee received in advance to the plaintiff if requested.