EN SUPREME COURT
Legal Department
Originally: 2014/16696
The Verdict: 2016/5804
Decision Date: 10.09.2016
TITLE DEED AND REGISTRATION CANCELLATION CASES – LEGAL AND LEGAL REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE EVIDENCE – APPROVAL OF THE JUDGMENT
SUMMARY: In the case related to the cancellation and registration of the title deed, it was decided to approve the judgment because there was no discrepancy in the evaluation of the evidence when the content of the file, the collected evidence and the legal and legal grounds on which the judgment was based were taken into account.
(1086 SK Md. 436) (6100 SK Law 3)
Litigation and Decrees: In the case between the parties;
The plaintiff stated that he appointed himself as a proxy to sell his share in the real estate numbered…… on 15/08/2003, despite the notification to the lawyer, his share was transferred to the other defendant by the lawyer through sale, the sale price was not paid, the defendants acted in cooperation and assistance, claiming that the deed was canceled and registered in his name, otherwise he requested the collection of the sale price.
Paying paid TL 7,000 to the plaintiff as the selling price, paid TL9,000 to the plaintiff attorney, personally paid TL 2,000 to the plaintiff while arranging the power of attorney, paid a total of TL 11,000, defendant … sold the real estate to the other defendant for a price of TL 10,000 by proxy, the 7,000-TL promissory note given to the plaintiff as the selling price was subject to execution, paid TL9,500 to the plaintiff attorney, the abandoned apartment under construction at the end of 2003, the defendant …
paid TL 9,500 to the plaintiff attorney, the plaintiff attorney paid TL 9,000 to the plaintiff attorney, the plaintiff attorney personally paid TL 2,000 to the plaintiff while arranging the power of attorney, the defendant paid TL 1,000 to the plaintiff attorney, the defendant paid TL 1,000 to the plaintiff attorney, the defendant paid TL 1,000 to the plaintiff attorney, the defendant defendant paid TL 1,000 to the plaintiff attorney, the defendant that he had agreed with the defendant …
to buy with a price, that the TL was paid as a piece of jewelry on the sale announcement of the apartment, and the 5,000TL was paid by check dated 10/04/2004, however, they claimed that the other defendant was delaying the transfer of the title deed, that the transfer was possible on 04/08/2004, that they spent 17,000 TL for the real estate after the transfer, that it was impossible for them to act in good faith, cooperate with the other defendant and know that he was dismissed as a lawyer, that he was the main victim. They argued that the case was dismissed.
The court dismissed the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proved.
Although the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s attorney in a timely and voluntary manner, the hearing request was rejected in terms of value; the Investigative Judge’s report was read and his opinion was taken. The file was examined, he thought it should be discussed.
Conclusion: The content of the file, the evidence collected, the legal and legal justification on which the judgment is based, the finding of inaccuracy in the evaluation of the evidence and, in particular, the inability to prove the allegation of abuse of power of attorney, paying the assignment fee, the plaintiff’s collection of the fee through the enforcement channel, this is essentially the issue ….. Criminal Punishment 2005/1132 E. at the session of the case No. 03/05/2006, which was also accepted by the plaintiff, there was no error in establishing the judgment as written; having determined that the plaintiff’s appeal was groundless, on 10.05.2016, the rejection of the decision, which was found to be in accordance with the procedure and the law, was approved by the 4,00 written below.-It was decided unanimously to collect the approval fee in the amount of TL to the plaintiff.