TC SUPREME
Law Department Article No.:2014/19529
Decision No.: 2014/20906 Decision Date: 24.06.2014 TRIAL COURT DECISION
COURT: Şereflikoçhisar 1. Court of First Instance
DATE: 29/01/2013
ISSUE: 2011/180-2013/76
At the end of the trial of the receivable Deciency between the parties,
to the partial acceptance of the case by the defendants for the reasons written in the decision,
within the period of the verdict partially rejected upon the appeal of the deputy, the case was examined and the issues deemed necessary were discussed and decided.
Decision
Plaintiff, defendant Y..A.. other respondent, N..A.daughter of I, son of M. Huh. Defendant N.to get married of
6.000,00 TL collateral money to the father, 6.000,00 TL gold and
that he should pay TL 3,500.00 in exchange for the dress he received and delivered, defendant Y..A.and the official wedding of
that he did not do it himself, that his daughter received alimony from him after he asked for an official wedding from his divorced wife, and the defendant’s daughter
stating that he received and that the defendants unfairly paid him 15,500.00 TL compensation
to collect the 15.500 TL receivable from the defendants and to charge the trial expenses to the defendants,
he requested that a decision be made on the acceptance of the claim and the lawsuit he filed.
The defendants have requested that the case be dismissed.
It was decided by the court that 5.000 TL should be taken from the defendants and given to the plaintiff for the partial acceptance of the case,
it was decided that the request for redundancy was rejected; the verdict was appealed by the defendants.
Among the other demands of the plaintiff, the defendant Yaşar’s daughter, the other defendant Nurgül and his own son
the defendant, who demanded to be given to him for the purpose of getting married, claimed that he gave Yaşar 5.000,00 TL security money (land registry money), claiming that
he has requested the refund of this price.
The court stated“ “…the plaintiff’s son and one of the defendants N..A..the marriage of ,
in order for the parties to get together and start living together without a formal marriage, the parties Dec.
it is necessary to declare the clothing and trappings given by the plaintiff to the defendant as a wedding gift before living
. Since it is understood that the trappings and gold bought as a wedding gift belong to the woman
it has been decided to reject the request in terms of costs.
Plaintiffs 6,000
Although he declared that he had given TL collateral money, there was no written document stating that he had given TL 6,000
the defendants admitted that they had been given £5,000, the witnesses also admitted that the plaintiff had been given £5,000
a guarantee of 5.000 TL was given to the defendants by the plaintiff, taking into account what they declared by the plaintiff
it is accepted that he was paid. From the scope of the file by the plaintiff
it is understood that the money given to the defendants was given as collateral money title deed money.
The witnesses are also 5,000
They stated that TL was given by the plaintiff to defendant Yaşar as collateral money. defendants also
They accepted that the guarantee money of 5.000 TL was given by the plaintiff. The freedom of a person’s behavior as a rule
it is limited by the rules of law and the general code of ethics. Violation of the law on freedom of contract
as a result, BK.nun 19 and 20. as shown in the articles
it has been accepted that the donation is invalid. A person may marry whom he wishes, provided that the law is a requirement of fundamental rights and freedoms
The girl’s father
his consent to marry in exchange for money received under the name of collateral money, property or title deed is illegal under these measures
since it will fall from what it is, the donations and commitments that provide it should also be considered invalid. For these reasons,
on the grounds of the assurance that it is necessary to decide that the 5,000 TL received should be returned to the plaintiff as money …”
The rejection of the plaintiff’s other requests is subject to the appeal fee only for the purpose of securing the marriage in question
The common and free wills of the parties to the marriage are regulated by the Civil Code and
it has been arranged that this should be done within the framework of the principles he has determined. In the Civil Code and other laws
in order to secure the marriage, a price may be requested under the name of the appeal collateral money (land registry money)
there is no regulation.
That the money paid under this name is contrary to general morality and public order
it is open. A missing debt in money paid in violation of general morality and public order
it is qualified and cannot be requested through litigation. In this case, the court examines the case on the following grounds:
Without taking this issue into account, a written decision is made with an erroneous discretion, when a full rejection is required,
it is against the procedure and the law to give it and it should be broken.
CONCLUSION: The decision appealed for the reasons explained above was overturned in favor of the defendants,
it was decided unanimously on 24.6.2014 to refund the fee amount of 85.40 TL received upon request in advance.