Supreme Court 14.The Law Department has defined the real estate sales promise agreements as follows;
22 Of the Code of Obligations of the “Source”. contracts for the promise of sale of immovable property, which are taken from Article 213 of the Code of Obligations. article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code. and Article 89 of the Notarial Code. in accordance with the provisions of the article, it is a type of contract that must be personally drawn up in front of a notary, in other words, its validity is subject to the condition of an official form, which imposes debts on both parties and provides personal rights. 716 of the Turkish Civil Code, when the performance of the promised creditor from the seller, who is charged with the debt of transfer of property by the real estate sales promise agreement, is not fulfilled. in accordance with the article, the applicant may request the fulfillment of the provision of the debt in the case of cancellation and registration of the title deed.”
In order for the Supreme Court to decide on the acceptance of cases arising from sales promise contracts, it is necessary to create the following conditions;
“In order to be able to decide on the acceptance of cases arising from the contract of promise of sale, the contract must have the ability to perform. Ownership of cooperation (TMK. m. 701) subject to if one of the partners of the partnership in real estate (in the case of a subsidiary) makes a promise to sell to a non-partner, the contract is valid as a commitment treatment, but the existence of the possibility of performance of the contract cannot be mentioned until the partnership of the partnership is resolved. This may be due to the presence of a record preventing collateral savings in the title deed to the real estate promised for sale, or the violation of Article 8 of the Law on Land Protection and Land Use No. 5403. it also applies if the sale of real estate is promised in violation of the provisions of the article, or if the promised real estate is the subject of a property dispute in another court.”
14.LEGAL DEPARTMENT 2017/2159 E. , 2017/5245 K.
“text of jurisprudence”
COURT OF First Instance: Court of First Instance
06.03.2013 cancel the deed given by counsel plaintiff against the defendants on the day the result of the request with the petition and registration at the end of the trial; the case for the acceptance of a part of the Examination given 26.11.2014 blog Yargitayca provision requested by the defendant, but in time, once the petition of Appeal has been decided upon the adoption of apparently our apartment 17.12.2015 blog decided to return to the scene after it resolved by examining all the papers in the file and:
decision
The case concerns the cancellation of the title deed and the registration request arising from the contract of promise of sale.
The plaintiff’s attorney of the defendants Muris the…’S,… noterligi of dated 30.12.1996, very casual, and the sales agreement No. 115 preliminary 91,93 parcel Muris inheritance rights in real estate will be transferred from the client to the promise to sell, the client said they were continuously since then in real estate and shares in real estate in agricultural activities of the defendants by the plaintiff on behalf of the aforementioned cancellation of registration the land registry, and has prosecuted and demand that it be given to the decision.
Some of the defendants appealed the statute of limitations and argued for the dismissal of the case.
Upon acceptance of the case, the court decided to cancel the defendant’s shares in the real estate numbered 91.93 and 115 parcels and to register and register them in the title deed on behalf of the plaintiff with the cancellation of the defendant’s shares in the real estate numbered 91.93 and 115 parcels.
The judgment was appealed by some of the defendants.
22 of the Code of Obligations. contracts for the promise of sale of immovable property, which are taken from Article 213 of the Code of Obligations. article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code. and Article 89 of the Notarial Code. in accordance with the provisions of the article, it is a type of contract that must be personally drawn up in front of a notary, in other words, its validity is subject to the condition of an official form, which imposes debts on both parties and provides personal rights. 716 of the Turkish Civil Code, when the performance of the promised creditor from the seller, who is charged with the debt of transfer of property by the real estate sales promise agreement, is not fulfilled. in accordance with the article, the applicant may request the fulfillment of the provision of the debt in the case of cancellation and registration of the title deed.
In order to be able to decide on the acceptance of cases arising from the contract of promise of sale, the contract must have the ability to perform. Ownership of cooperation (TMK. m. 701) subject to if one of the partners of the partnership in real estate (in the case of a subsidiary) makes a promise to sell to a non-partner, the contract is valid as a commitment treatment, but the existence of the possibility of performance of the contract cannot be mentioned until the partnership of the partnership is resolved. This may be due to the presence of a record preventing collateral savings in the title deed to the real estate promised for sale, or the violation of Article 8 of the Law on Land Protection and Land Use No. 5403. it also applies if the sale of real estate is promised in violation of the provisions of the article, or if the promised real estate is the subject of a property dispute in another court.
In a concrete case, the immovable property subject to litigation is still subject to the regime of joint ownership in the title deed on behalf of the defendants and other non-litigant heirs of kök muris …. It is understood that the plaintiff is not one of the cooperation partners in the real estate, in other words, the plaintiff is a third party other than tereke. The subject of the lawsuit is subject to the property ownership regime of the immovable property and there is no possibility of performance of the contract. For this reason, it was not considered correct to establish a provision in writing when the court should have decided to dismiss the case.
CONCLUSION: For the reasons described above, it was unanimously decided on 19.06.2017 that the provision would be OVERTURNED by accepting appeals, that the advance fee would be returned to the depositor upon request, and that the decision would be corrected within 15 days after the notification of the decision.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.