TC
Supreme
Law Office
E. 2015/9657
K. 2016/10945
T. 8.11.2016
4721/m.989
LAWSUIT : Plaintiff … acting against him At the end of the trial with a petition filed by the court on 07/03/2014 requesting the determination and registration of the defendant’s vehicle ownership; The Supreme Court decided to accept the case in its decision dated 08/04/2015, despite the arrival of the defendant’s attorney at the hearing requested by the defendant’s attorney, but upon notification that the hearing was held on the predetermined 08/11/2016, the plaintiff did not come from the opposite side, and an open hearing was opened.
After the decision on the acceptance of the appeal petition was made, the party was notified that the hearing had ended after receiving the oral statement of the person who was duly present and understood to be in compliance. The case has been discussed. report prepared by the judge of the Court of Accounts and the documents in the file were examined and discussed as necessary:
DECISION : The case is related to the request for the determination and registration of vehicle ownership. The court decided to accept the case, the decision was appealed by the defendant.
If the plaintiff has filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant for fraud filed outside the defendant for the goods belonging to the party that constitutes the subject of the lawsuit without his consent, and the vehicle was transferred from the plaintiff to the plaintiff before the lawsuit, the transfer transaction will be deemed invalid if the defendant specifies the registration of the proxy name when determining the goods belonging to him.
The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed, stating that the third person who bought the vehicle from the gallery had good intentions.
The court decided to accept the case by determining that the defendant was in good faith, but when the situations of the owner who was deprived of the brokerage permit on the one hand, and the defendant who bought the vehicle in good faith on the other hand were evaluated, it was understood that the plaintiff’s victimization should be kept superior, the defendant’s defense that he bought the vehicle at a place such as an auction or a gallery selling the vehicle was not put forward.
In the article of the law No. 989, which bears the main title of “Savings Authority and Movable Property Litigation” of the TMK; “A person whose property has been stolen, lost or otherwise taken away against his will may file a movable property lawsuit against anyone who has this thing within five years. Pays Sundays, if this movable property was acquired in good faith from the auction or market, or those who sell similar things; a lawsuit against the first and subsequent rich acquirers of movable property, but the paid price can be opened on condition of being returned.” the judgment has taken place.
As can be understood from the text of the article; if a third person with good intentions buys something that comes out of an auction, marketplace or someone who sells such items without the consent of the owner; it is subject to the condition that the original owner can win the refund case that he will open both against this person and against the subsequent subsequent liability. In such cases, the price given by a bona fide third party to acquire this property must be returned to him by the plaintiff requesting restitution, that is, the original owner. If this condition is not met, the court cannot accept the extradition case filed by the original owner. (Decision of the General Assembly of the Law No. 2002/643 dated 25/09/2002, Based on 2002/4-608)
In the concrete case, the defendant showed that he had purchased the vehicle subject to the lawsuit from a person named … who was a dealer, that is … Otomotiv; as evidence, he showed the tax registration plate information of the person excluded from the lawsuit and the notarized sales deed dated 28/04/2011 for the transfer of the vehicle. In the article dated 24/11/2014 addressed to the court by the Malatya Tax Office Directorate; … registered to the tax number … it has been reported that his apartment has been engaged in automobile and light motor vehicle retail trade in his apartments since 17/07/2009 and his activity is still continuing.
In this case; it is understood that the defendant bought the vehicle from a person who sells such things. On the other hand, it has been accepted by the court that the defendant has good intentions. On the contrary, an allegation and evidence have not been included in the file. In this case, the plaintiff can only get his vehicle back from the defendant by paying the price. Although the court should have decided to accept the extradition case if the price was paid, the decision had to be overturned due to the fact that the establishment of the judgment without taking into account the evil eye was not in accordance with the procedure and the law.
According to the acceptance, registration is an administrative process and the cancellation of the registration in the traffic registry and the issuance of a new registration and registration decision is a decision that forces the administration to take action. However, a decision of the kind that forces the administration to take action cannot be made in a judicial place. The court should be content with making a ruling only on the determination of ownership, and it is also not correct to cancel the traffic registry registration and issue a new registration and registration decision.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 08.11.2016 to OVERTURN the appealed decision for the reasons shown above, to charge the plaintiff the trial proxy fee of TL 1,350.00, which was appreciated in favor of the defendant, and to refund the fee received in advance if requested.