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 hearing of the registration case by the court, a decision was made on the partial acceptance of the case on the appeal of the FK; after the decision was made to accept the appeal petition, the document in the file was read and Decried as necessary:
DECISION:
Plaintiff’s attorney in the lawsuit petition; yunus the defendant’s father is acting together with his other brother Mehmet Avşar on the real estate they have 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 engaged in commercial activities together by the method of separation, yunus’s tractors, the agricultural activities necessary for this, according to the decision they took based on the principles given by the criminal court of peace in 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 on behalf of the partnership and then issued the protocol deed, they intervened in the case for the elimination of the partnership between yunus’s heirs after his death, the ownership of the file in question was granted 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, upon determining that the heirs of the real estate jointly own the real estate, he requested that transactions be made between the other partners and Mehmet YK and DMV through equity capital and that Decrees be made for the registration of the real estate on their behalf.
In the response petition submitted by the defendant Fatma’s attorney; The plaintiff’s attorney is M, who was shown as a partner with the Board of Directors and the elder delegation in the partnership protocol deed dated 26/10/1998.K.although he claimed ownership due to the absence of the signature of , he claimed that the partnership did not take place, that it was invalid and had no provisions, and also that the heirs of MK should sue together and separately if there is a claim to ownership, therefore, the unfair and unwarranted lawsuit 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 previously it was agreed that transactions would be made under this protocol, 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 at a rate of 1/3, traffic commissioner Y. Corum is a mess.with the acceptance of the case of 19 … 272 registered in his name with the cancellation of the registration of ownership of the vehicle with the number plate 2/3 at the rate of 1/3 YK Y.K. it was decided to register at the rate of, and the verdict was appealed by the defendant Fatma.
According to the articles contained in the file, taking into account the evidence on which the decision is based and the legally binding reasons, and in particular the absence of any wrongdoing in the evaluation of the evidence, it became clear that the defendant’s other appeals were not appropriate.
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 determination of the tractor’s ownership in the lawsuit petition, the court should have been satisfied with making a decision only with the determination of the tractor’s ownership, but since it was not considered correct to make a registration decision along with the determination of ownership, it had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION:
In this respect, it is not appropriate to establish a written judgment without taking into account the principles described above, and the appeals are in place for these reasons, and the HUMK of the judgment has been accepted. 428. it was decided unanimously on 10.09.2015 that the appeal fee received in advance in accordance with the article should be overturned and returned to the plaintiff at his request.