TC SUPREME
Civil Chamber Article No: 2014/19529
Decision No: 2014/20906 Decision Date: 24.06.2014 YARGITAY DECISION
COURT: Şereflikoçhisar 1st Civil Court of First Instance
DATE: 29/01/2013
NO: 2011/180-2013/76
At the end of the trial of the debt lawsuit between the parties, for the reasons written in the decision,
defendants, partial acceptance of the case, partial rejection of the case upon the appeal of the
attorney, it was decided to examine and discuss the case and to do the necessary.
Decision:
The plaintiff, the defendant Y..A., is the daughter of the other defendant N..A.’i, his son M. He. In order to get married, the defendant N. had to pay 6.000,00 TL as security money to the father
, 6.000,00 TL for gold and 3.500,00 TL for the dress she received
, but the defendant Y..A. ‘s official marriage
, upon her daughter’s request for official marriage, she received alimony from her divorced husband, the defendant also took her daughter
and the defendants paid 15.500,00 TL compensation to her unfairly,
decided to collect 15.500 TL receivable from the defendants and to charge the court costs to the defendants,
to be the subject of the claim and lawsuit.
The defendants demanded the dismissal of the lawsuit.
The court decided to partially accept the lawsuit, to take 5.000 TL from the defendants and give it to the plaintiff, and to reject the
excess claim; the judgment was appealed by the defendants.
In addition to the other claims of the plaintiff, the daughter of the defendant Yaşar claimed that she gave 5.000,00 TL collateral money (title deed money) to the defendant Yaşar for the marriage of the other defendant Nurgül and her son
and demanded the return of this amount
. The court stated that “…the marriage of the plaintiff’s son and the defendant N.. A…’s marriage,
for the parties to come together and start living together without a civil marriage, the parties,
the clothing and jewelry given by the plaintiff to the defendant as a wedding gift before they lived
since it is understood that the jewelry and gold received as a wedding gift belong to the woman, it was decided to reject the request in terms of costs. Although the plaintiff declared that he gave 6.000,00
TL collateral money to the defendants, since there is no written document stating that he gave 6.000 TL money
, the defendants accepted that they were given 5.000,00 TL money, the witnesses also accepted that the plaintiff received £ 5.000,
the defendants accepted that the plaintiff was given 5.000 TL collateral by the plaintiff, and taking into account their statements,
accepted that he was paid.
From the scope of the plaintiff’s file,
it is understood that the money given to the defendants was given as collateral money. Witnesses also
stated that the plaintiff gave 5.000 TL collateral money to the defendant Yaşar. The defendants also stated that the plaintiff
5.000 TL collateral money was given. As a rule, a person’s freedom of
behavior is limited by the rules of law and general morality. As a result of the violation of the law of freedom of contract
, it is accepted that the donation is invalid, as shown in Articles 19 and 20 of the Code. A person may marry whomever he or she wishes, provided that the law is a requirement of fundamental rights and freedoms
It is in the
direction that the girl’s father’s
consent to the marriage in return for the collateral money, the goods or money to be received within this scope will fall due to the unlawful
, and the donations and commitments that provide this should be deemed invalid. For these reasons, it is necessary to decide to return the 5.000 TL received as collateral to the plaintiff…”
The dismissal of the plaintiff’s other claims is subject to the contract price for the sole purpose of securing the marriage in question
The common and free will of the parties to the marriage is regulated by the Civil Code and
it is regulated that it must be performed within the framework of the principles established by it. In the Civil Code and other laws, a fee may be demanded under the name of guarantee money (title deed money) for securing the marriage
; however, there is no regulation
on this subject. It is clear that the money paid under this name is against general morality and public order. A debt missing in the money paid in violation of general morality and public order is of
quality and cannot be claimed through a lawsuit. In this case, the court examines the case on the following grounds:
Without taking this into consideration, an erroneous discretionary written decision was made, while it should be fully rejected,
is contrary to the procedure and the law and requires termination.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons explained above, it was unanimously decided on 24.6.2014 that the fee of 85,40 TL received upon the request of the defendants
shall be refunded in advance and the decision shall be VACATED in favor of the defendant.