Is There a Legal Validity of the External Sale of Real Estate with Title, What Rights Does the External Sale Provide to the Parties The Decision of the Court of Cassation

T.C. SUPREME

16.law office
Basis: 2015/20772
Verdict: 2016/7160
Decision Date: 29.06.2016

CANCELLATION OF TITLE DEED AND REGISTRATION CASE – EXTERNAL SALE OF REAL ESTATE WITH TITLE DEED – THE NEED TO ESTABLISH A PROVISION ACCORDING TO THE FAIR PRICE TO BE CALCULATED AS OF THE DATE WHEN THE TRANSFER OF REAL ESTATE THROUGH THE TITLE DEED BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE – THE PROVISION IS OVERTURNED

SUMMARY: on the date of the deed for the transfer of immovable unregistered Muris between the parties in the contract of sale applicable after the sale by way of deed the deed of real estate on behalf of the seller for the seller as of the date of the transfer becomes impossible calculated according to the terms established on April 26, 1966, should be fair, while in the case considered, and under the illusion of evidence are deducted at the discretion, the provision and the establishment of not-to-miss, whether the defendants ‘ appeal of counsel on appeal for the reasons of the adoption of procedures and provision contrary to the law, it was decided to degradation.

(4721 P. K. m. 706) (6098 Pp. K. m. 237) (2644 Pp. K. m. 26) (1512 P. K. m. 60)

Lawsuit: The Court of Cassation is requested to examine the verdict given as a result of the lawsuit between the parties Decisively; the appellant on the day and time specified for the hearing …, etc. the acting Attorney … requested an appeal against … and … with …, etc. the acting Attorney … they’re here. The trial began in the face of those who came. After hearing the oral explanations of the parties, it was reported that the hearing was over. The inspection report and the documents in the file were read during the period. Interviewed as required:

Decision: the village in the study area as a result of the cadastre No. 218 parcel 6.600,00 square meters of surface area in 1959, and in 1966 they found we can move in before the name registered by default, kayden in the same year due to the grant have been registered in the name of wife, the heirs, but the death of the defendant on behalf of a foreclosed in 2007 saw the opening of the case from the case at hand, due to the after sales and after sales … again because of in the name are. The plaintiffs … and their friends said that after the cadastral determination, but before it was finalized, in 1962, the real estate was purchased by the muris … with an external deed from the identified owner … and that since the date of sale, its possession was also found by the muris and the death of the muris, claiming that the defendants are not willing to transfer the title deed, they filed a lawsuit with the cancellation of the title deed registration on behalf of the defendants and the request to pay the current value of the current value of the real estate over the current value and the 500,00 TL penal clause in the sales contract, if it is not registered on their behalf in the proportion of inheritance shares. At the end of the trial conducted by the court, it was decided to accept the plaintiffs’ cases in terms of compensation claim; 204.600,00 TL was jointly and severally collected from the defendants and paid to the plaintiffs; the verdict was appealed by the defendants’ attorney.

Conclusion: the sale is not legally valid title deeds of immovable externally by the court, but externally, based on sales of real estate for more than 20 years, the plaintiff by the party would lose the possession of the plaintiff of the use of the deed, the legal value of malik written by way of justification that was founded by the title of the research and investigation to sentencing and judgment, as there isn’t enough in the end result, however, are not appropriate to the scope and even the characterization of the case file. Written contracts for the sale of real estate registered in the title deed are not legally valid due to the fact that they are not officially made (TMK. md.706, TBK md.237, Title deed law art.26 and Art. of the Notarial law.60) is undisputed. For this reason, as in the current contracts, they may request what they give to the parties according to the unfair acquisition rules, since it will not give rise to rights and debts to the parties. There are no formal conditions stipulated in the law on the transfer of immovables that are not registered in the title deed, and it is sufficient for the parties to agree and transfer the ownership of the immovable to the buyer as a result of this agreement. After the transfer of its possession, the formation of the title deed record about the immovable does not affect the validity of the contract concluded before. A valid contract between the plaintiffs as to whether the defendants Muris Muris with the purchase agreement, the plaintiffs and after the detection kesinlesme before the date, in other words, the deed made by the owner about detected yet to occur without recording the sale and purchase of immovable 18.02.1962 dated from the date of tenure based on the case at hand is opened. From the scope of the file, it was determined that the possession of the immovable was on the plaintiff’s side until the date of the lawsuit. Therefore, after the transfer of possession of the defendants and the plaintiff’s sale Muris to record the deed in the name Muris the formation of the agreement between the parties does not affect the validity of the provisions of Muris, possession resides on the purchasing side of the court as long as the contract is invalid, the limitation period will also work in this direction over the objections of the respondent that the appeal is not struck with the acceptance. In another matter, in the case of a lawsuit filed based on a valid contract, the title deed is collected at the point of calculating the requested price on what date and according to what value, if cancellation and registration are not possible. In the contract concluded between the parties, the seller … is not the Decoy owner of the real estate as of the date of the case. For this reason, it is clear that the plaintiffs will not be able to request the cancellation of the title deed and registration in their names, since it has become impossible to perform the transfer of the immovable property that the seller is no longer the owner of through the title deed. The court also establishes a provision for paying the plaintiff the fair value of the real estate on the date of the case and the subject of the appeal review in the face of the absence of an appeal by the plaintiffs regarding the decision is whether the price assessed by the court is in accordance with the law. Then, first of all, it is necessary to determine when performance becomes impossible. April 20, 1966 on behalf of the seller of the disputed real estate was registered by the court and 6 days later on April 26, 1966, due to the grant, kayden was transferred to his wife ………….. In other words, from the seller’s point of view, it has become impossible to transfer the real estate to the plaintiff as of April 26, 1966, due to the transfer of the real estate to another person through the title deed. the fact that …’s death in 2004 and the transfer of kayden to the defendant’s heirs in 2007, … and …’s heirs are the same persons does not change this result. Moreover, the plaintiffs have no claims that the transfer of the immovable to the spouse due to the grant is consensual, and there is no lawsuit filed within the term based on this consensual claim. In these circumstances,; Muris between the parties on the date the deed for the transfer of immovable unregistered applicable sales on behalf of the seller in the contract after-sale deed the deed of real estate by way of the transfer becomes impossible for the seller as of the date of 26 April 1966 calculated according to the terms established fair should be considered in the case and the evidence in the case of written treated as a reduction of the error terms in the establishment of style-miss whether the defendants ‘ counsel on appeal for the reasons of Appeal with the adoption procedures and provision contrary to the law of corruption, It was unanimously decided on the day of 29.06.2016 that the 1.350.00 TL proxy fee set for the Supreme Court hearing should be taken from the plaintiffs and given to the defendants who represented themselves with a proxy at the hearing, and that the appeal decision fee deposited in advance should be returned to the appellant defendants upon request.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.