TR HIGH COURT
Law Firm
File Number: 2016/10495
Decision: 2016/9366
Decision Date: 16.06.2016
CASE FOR COMPENSATION – THE APPLICANT HAS A CLAIM BASED ON LEGAL GROUNDS BASED ON JUDICIAL ENRICHMENT – THHAS BEEN EXCESSIVELY FINED
SUMMARY: The plaintiff’s claim is not within the scope of the “material compensation case due to the breakdown of the engagement” regulated in the TMK article, but is related to a case based on the legaUMMARY: The plaintiff’s claim is not within the scope of the “material compensation case due to the breakdown of the engagement” regulated in the TMK article, but is related to a case based on the legal reason of unfair gain. In fact, the case was filed against the plaintiff’s fiancée and also against the heirs of the title deed owner of the property in question, and in this case, the resolution of the dispute is the duty of the general courts. Therefore, the court must go into the merits of the case and decide according to the result; otherwise, a decision of non-jurisdiction would be against the procedure and the law and should be reversed.
(Art. of Law No. 6098 120) (Art. 6100 of the SK Md. 114)
Trial and Decision: As a result of the decision of the case between the parties by the court, upon the appeal of the decision decided to dismiss the case by the plaintiff’s attorney within the time limit of the decision decided to dismiss the case due to lack of duty; upon the decision to accept the appeal petition, the necessary evaluation was made by Deciphering the document in the file:
In the petition of the plaintiff’s attorney; he demanded and sued that all the heirs of the inheritor were shown as defendants due to the fact that the real estate subject to the lawsuit was registered in the name of the defendant …, all the heirs of the inheritor were shown as defendants, that the defendants … and the defendants were engaged, that the house where the parties would live together when they got married was allocated to the plaintiff … and the defendant … by other defendants who were …’s mother and brothers, that the defendant did not make any payments despite the defendants’ request.p.s., the defendants jointly and severally paid the defendants …, with the legal interest to be processed from the date of notification.
In the reply petition of the defendant’s attorney; it is stated that the case is related to the claim for receivables arising from the breach of engagement, the case must be heard in the Family Court, in this case, the enmity can only be directed at the plaintiff and the defendant’s fiancée.In the reply petition of the defendant’s attorney; it is stated that the case is related to the claim for receivables arising from the breach of engagement, the case must be heard in the Family Court, in this case, the enmity can only be directed at the plaintiff and the defendant’s fiancée.
Accordance with Article 115 / 2 of the CCP, it was decided to reject the transaction and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney.
In the concrete case; the plaintiff claimed that during the time they were engaged to the defendant, the defendant’s family made some useful and mandatory expenses on the real estate allocated to them for residence after marriage and registered in the name of the defendant’s deceased wife in the deed, claiming that the value of the real estate increased due to the breakdown of the engagement, and requested a refund of the expenses incurred.
Accordingly, the claimant’s request is subject to Article 120 of the TMK. it is not within the scope of the “financial compensation due to breach of engagement” claim regulated in the article, but is related to the claim based on the legal cause of unfair earnings.ccordingly, the claimant’s request is subject to Article 120 of the TMK. it is not within the scope of the “financial compensation due to breach of engagement” claim regulated in the article, but is related to the claim based on the legaAccordingly, the claimant’s request is subject to Article 120 of the TMK. it is not within the scope of the “financial compensation due to breach of engagement” claim regulated in the article, but is related to the claim based on the legal cause of unfair earnings.
As a matter of fact, the case has been opened not only to the plaintiff’s fiancée, but also to the heirs of the title owner of the real estate in question, and in this case the resolution of the dispute is the duty of the general courts.
In this case, while the court should decide according to the result by entering into the merits, the decision of dismissal in writing is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires cancellation.
Conclusion:
Regardless of the principles explained above, it is decided that the written verdict is erroneous and for this reason the appeal objections are valid, and that the verdict is in accordance with Article 428lusion: Regardless of the principles explained above, it is decided that the written verdict is erroneous for this reason the appeal objections are valid, and that the verdict is in