TC
Supreme
law office
MAIN NO.: 2016/11600
DECISION NO: 2018/441
DECISION DATE: 7.2.2018
SIGNATURE OBJECTION – SIGNATURE SAMPLES MUST BE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE PARTIES AT THE HEARING – SIGNATURE SAMPLES MUST BE TAKEN BY THE DECISION MAKER AFTER THE HEARING
2004/e.72
SUMMARY : The plaintiff’s case depends on the signature of the discoverer and claims that the bills of exchange belonging to him dated 23.01.2014 do not belong to him as a defendant, plaintiff 1, who was present at the post-trial hearing as a party. with the existence of the interim decision, it was decided to take a sample in the presence of the signature, and although a sample of the signature was found in the minutes of the judge and clerk who received the signature later, it was not made in the presence of the parties at this hearing, and the trial decision was made after Dec.
This situation was the subject of the defendant’s objection to the minutes taken on the grounds that it was contrary to the signature examination procedure. A decision cannot be made based on a procedural review. If the plaintiff does not consent to the original of the deed in question being shown in front of the parties present and being asked if the signature belongs to him, samples of the signature entered in the minutes are taken in his presence, and then a graphological report is taken along with other samples of the signature entered in the minutes brought from the places indicated by the parties.
SITUATION: At the end of the trial of the voluntary determination-istirdat case between the parties, the decision to accept the case on written grounds is appealed by the party’s deputies within the time limit, the file is examined, the file is decided and deemed necessary upon Decertification:
decision
The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the defendant initiated enforcement proceedings specific to the exchange notes against the plaintiff, but the signature on the deed subject to the prosecution did not belong to the plaintiff, requested and sued to determine that the plaintiff had no debt, and then declared that the plaintiff had paid it for fear of execution, declaring that it had turned into a lawsuit.
The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that the defendant had sold animals to the plaintiff, therefore, the deed subject to the lawsuit was signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.
According to the evidence collected by the court; it was understood that the cashier’s signature contained in the promissory note subject to the lawsuit does not belong to the plaintiff, therefore the plaintiff has no responsibility for the promissory note, the case turned into an appeal case due to collection at the follow-up stage, in addition,
the compensation terms requested by the parties from each other did not occur during the acceptance of the case, compensation in the amount of TL 43,000.00 was collected from the defendant with commercial interest from the date of payment, the parties decided to reject the compensation claims, the decision was appealed by the party’s attorneys. paid by the defendant in the amount of TL 43,000.00 was collected from the date of payment, the parties decided to reject the compensation claims, the decision was appealed by the party’s attorneys.
Plaintiff 1, acting as a party at the hearing held after the hearing, after the plaintiff claimed that the signature of the discoverer did not belong to him in the petition dated 23.01.2014. in the event of the existence of an interim Decrees, it was decided to take a sample in the presence of the signature, then it was decided to have a sample of the signature in the minutes of the judge and clerk, after which the signature was taken, although it was not made in the presence of the parties at this hearing, the trial decision was made after the interim Decrees.
This situation has been the subject of the defendant’s objection to the minutes taken on the grounds that it is contrary to the signature examination procedure. A decision cannot be made based on a procedural review. If the plaintiff does not consent to the original of the deed in question being shown in front of the parties present and being asked if the signature belongs to him, samples of the signature entered in the minutes are taken in his presence, and then a graphological report is taken along with other samples of the signature entered in the minutes brought from the places indicated by the parties.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 07.02.2018 that the verdict should be OVERTURNED in favor of the defendant, that there is no room for examining the defendant’s other appeals and the plaintiff’s appeals for the time being, and that if an advance payment is requested, it should be returned to the parties according to the reason for the violation.