Objection to Signature, Decision of the Court of Cassation on the Necessity of Obtaining Samples of Signatures Before the Parties at the Hearing

T.C.
SUPREME
19. law office
MAIN NUMBER: 2016/11600
DECISION NO: 2018/441
DECISION DATE: 7.2.2018

> SIGNATURE OBJECTION – THE NEED FOR SIGNATURE SAMPLES TO BE TAKEN IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES AT THE HEARING – SIGNATURE SAMPLES TO BE MADE AFTER THE HEARING WITH AN INTERIM Decisioncredit:GETTY – CONTRIBUTOR

2004/m.72

SUMMARY : the plaintiff’s case-subject to the signature of the drawer is not to claim that his own bills dated 23.01.2014 acting as a party in the hearing after the trial the plaintiff No. 1 with the presence of the decision of Dec, it was decided that samples would be taken in the presence of the signature, then the signature received an example of the signature of the judge and the clerk in the report, although there are in this trial is not done in the presence of the parties, the hearing decision was made after Dec. This situation has been the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as the signature examination is in violation of the procedure. A decision cannot be made based on a procedural investigation. The signature of the plaintiff by the court on trial for the work to be done to call a hearing Achilles, who are ready to Bono truth shows itself in front and the signature of the parties the following topic was his own signature samples are taken and then asked whether they would accept peace if applied medari or in the side of the circle brought from other places that refer to the report consists of the signature being taken grafolojik along with applied examples.

CASE : At the end of the trial of the negative determination-ouster case between the parties, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary upon the appeal of the representatives of the parties within the period of the decision made for the acceptance of the case for the reasons written in the Decriminalization:

decision

The plaintiff’s attorney claimed that the defendant initiated enforcement proceedings specific to exchange notes against the plaintiff, but the signature on the bond subject to follow-up did not belong to the plaintiff, and sued to determine that the plaintiff was not a debtor, and then stated that it was paid by the plaintiff under the fear of execution, declaring that it had turned into an ouster.

The defendant’s attorney requested the dismissal of the case by arguing that the defendant sold animals to the plaintiff and that the deed subject to the case was signed by the plaintiff and given to the defendant.

According to the evidence collected by the court, the case is the subject of a drawer’s signature is located in the bonds have been found not to belong to the plaintiff, because, therefore, the plaintiff’s bills is not responsible for the following during the collection phase of the case into the case due to being made for the restitution, in addition to the parties from each other on the grounds that they demand the compensation does not conform with the terms of the acceptance of the case 43.000,00 TL with interest from the date of payment of the defendant’s commercial for the collection, given the decision of denial of claims for damages of the parties, the parties, the provision of First Instance was appealed.

Subject to the plaintiff’s case-bills dated 23.01.2014 to claim that the signature of the drawer is not his own, acting as a party in the hearing after the trial the plaintiff No. 1 with the presence of the decision of Dec, it was decided that samples would be taken in the presence of the signature, then the signature received an example of the signature of the judge and the clerk in the report, although there are in this trial is not done in the presence of the parties, the hearing decision was made after Dec. This situation has been the subject of the defendant’s objection to the report received as the signature examination is in violation of the procedure. A decision cannot be made based on a procedural investigation. The signature of the plaintiff by the court on trial for the work to be done to call a hearing Achilles, who are ready to Bono truth shows itself in front and the signature of the parties the following topic was his own signature samples are taken and then asked whether they would accept peace if applied medari or in the side of the circle brought from other places that refer to the report consists of the signature being taken grafolojik along with applied examples.

CONCLUSION : It was unanimously decided on 07.02.2018 that the provision should be OVERTURNED for the benefit of the defendant for the reasons described above, that there is no place to examine the defendant’s other appeals and the plaintiff’s appeals based on the reason for the reversal, and that the advance fee should be returned to the parties if requested.

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