T.C.
SUPREME
General Assembly of Law
Base No :2004/4-249
Decision No: 2004/247
Date of Decision : 05.05.2004
THE CASE FOR THE RETURN OF HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND TRAPPINGS – WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE WOMAN
CONSIDERING THAT THE TRAPPINGS WERE DONATED TO THE WOMAN – THE DEFENDANT
THAT THE WOMAN GAVE THE TRAPPINGS OF HER OWN ACCORD
FAILURE TO PROVE – WITH THE RETURN OF THE DEFENDANT’S TRAPPINGS BELONGINGS
THE TAXPAYER IS
SUMMARY: No matter by whom the ornaments worn by the woman during the marriage were taken to her
it is considered donated, it must be returned to him. However, the trappings should not be returned to the husband
at the request and approval of the woman, the trappings are cashed and spent for household needs
if the defendant is proven wrong, the husband gets rid of the return of his trappings. In the case, it belongs to the plaintiff
it is understood that the gold subject of the lawsuit was cashed by the defendant during the continuation of the marriage
the defendant’s side has been deemed to have spent for the need, the defendant, the woman’s possessions of trappings with her own consent
the plaintiff is obliged to return the trappings subject to the lawsuit to the plaintiff because he cannot prove that he gave
it must be observed.
(4721 Pp. K. m. 6, 228, 220) (818 Pp. K. m. 61) (YHGK. 01.12.2004 T. 2004/4-624 E. 2004/639 K.) (4.
HD. 17.03.2003 T. 2002/12594 E. 2003/2919 K.)
Case: The trial between the parties for the case of “return of household goods and Decents”
finally; Osmaniye 1. 18.3.2002 Days given by the Court of First Instance regarding the rejection of the case and
upon request of the deputy plaintiff to examine the decision No. 1998/162-2002/145,
Supreme Court 4. With the decree of the Law Department dated 17.03.2003 and numbered 12549-2919,
(1- The case concerns the issuance of trappings and household items remaining in the defendant spouse. The case by the court
a decision was made to reject it, and the decision was appealed by the plaintiff.The ornaments worn on the woman during the marriage were taken by whoever donated her
about so. Thus, the subject matter of the lawsuit, which is understood to belong to the plaintiff, is the defendant during the continuation of the marriage
according to the defendant’s side, which was received and cashed and spent by the plaintiff, it was also accepted to the plaintiff
it must be returned. Without focusing on this aspect by the court, your request for trappings is unequivocal
the fact that it was rejected required a breakdown.
2- The plaintiff and the defendant had a fight before leaving the joint house and applied to the police station,
items that the plaintiff entered the house and placed in a suitcase while the defendant was still at the police station
it is understood that he left the house with. After this date, the plaintiff came home again and took away his belongings
there is no evidence in the file about him. The quantity and qualities of the items subject to litigation are also
considering whether it will be possible to carry them all with a suitcase without focusing on the house
a complete rejection of the case related to his belongings is also not true. Moreover, even some of the defendant’s witnesses are involved in the case
they reported that a significant part of the household items in question were taken by the defendant. In that case
all the evidence in the file must be examined together and the plaintiff must be given the items to be determined.
The fact that the court has decided in writing without focusing on these aspects is the reason for the violation) The reason for the violation is to restore the file instead of being overturned
however, at the end of the retrial, it was resisted by the court in the previous decision.
Appellant: Acting plaintiff
Decision of the General Assembly of Jurisprudence
After it is understood that the decision to resist was appealed during the examination by the General Assembly of the Law and
after reading the papers in the file, they were discussed as necessary:
Verdict: The case concerns the request for the return of the trappings and household items left in the defendant’s spouse.
The court held that “the plaintiff entered with the key in his hand while the defendant was not at home and
that he took away a number of items, and the defendant took the items belonging to him and left the ones belonging to the plaintiff
as can be seen from the witness statements, the plaintiff cannot prove that his belongings remain in the defendant, trappings
the defendant believes that his belongings should be located next to the woman in accordance with the usual course of life
that it was taken by the spouse by force or for any other reason must be proved by the plaintiff, trappings
even if the items have been cashed, they cannot be refunded because they have been spent for the common needs of the house”
his decision to dismiss the case, which cannot be proven on the grounds of, is special for the above-mentioned reasons
the apartment was damaged, it was resisted by the court in the previous decision.
As stated in the established Supreme Court decisions, who are the trappings worn by a woman during marriage
no matter what was taken by him, it is considered donated to him, it must be returned to him. However, the trappings of
at the request and approval of the woman, the trappings were cashed and the house was given to the husband not to be returned
if it is proved by the defendant that it was spent for his needs, the husband must return his trappings
gets rid of. In the case, the gold subject to the lawsuit, which is understood to belong to the plaintiff, during the continuation of the marriage
it has been accepted by the defendant that the money has been cashed by the defendant and spent for the household needs of the defendant, the defendant, the woman
since he could not prove that he gave my trappings of his own accord, the subject of the lawsuit was the trappings
he is liable to the plaintiff with a refund. Without focusing on this aspect by the court, your request for jewelry items
the fact that it was rejected completely is not accurate.
On the other hand; the parties had a fight before leaving the common house and applied to the police station,
during the defendant’s stay at the police station, the plaintiff knocked on the door of the house, his hands found in the house opened the door
after he didn’t open it, he entered the house through the balcony door, took the packed items, the clothes that were put in the sack and
a significant part of the items that are being sued for leaving the house by taking the children belong to him
from witness statements that it was taken by the defendant on the grounds that it was, some of the items were left at home
it is understood. Although it has been claimed that the key to the house was found in the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s
any evidence in the file that he came home again after the date and took things
is not included. In this case, all the evidence is evaluated together by the court and the subject of the case is
the quantity and qualities of the items obtained, taking into account which of the parties they may belong to, are all
focusing on whether it will be possible to transport it with packages, the items belonging to the plaintiff are the only
it is contrary to the procedure and the law that these aspects have been decided in writing without emphasis, while it is only necessary to be determined and decide on extradition to the plaintiff. For these reasons, the decision to resist must be overturned.
Conclusion: Above the decision of the plaintiff’s attorney to resist with the acceptance of appeals and overturning the Special Chamber
for the reasons shown in his decision, H.U.M.K.429th. in accordance with the clause on DETERIORATION, the request
it was decided unanimously on 05.05.2004 to return the advance fee in case of appeal.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.