The Right to File a Lawsuit for Cancellation And Registration of the Title Deed of the Heirs Whose Right to Inheritance Has Been Violated As a Result of Theft of Property From the Inheritance

A deceased agreement is an act in which the person who leaves an inheritance steals property from their heirs by showing gratuitous gains made by their heirs to deprive them of their inheritance rights, such as a contract of sale or maintenance until they die.

The person who leaves an inheritance transfers his real estate to an heir of his choice or to a third person, deprives other heirs of their share in the inheritance. As a matter of fact, there is either no price paid for the sale of real estate (the person who left an inheritance actually has a desire for forgiveness is shown as a sale in the land registry office) or there is a difference between the land registry office and the price actually paid. Dec.

Persons who have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit as a result of a fraudulent agreement and have the title of heir can file a lawsuit for cancellation and registration of the title deed.

In cases of cancellation and registration of land titles filed on the basis of a fraudulent agreement, the main issue being investigated is the true will of the muris. The will of the bride may also be intended for sale. In determining this issue, the financial situation of the muris, the financial situation of the inheritor or the third person are the issues that will be investigated first.
The criteria considered in the Decisions of the Supreme Court are as follows;

– Traditions of the region (if there is a general opinion that girls in this region will not receive a share of the inheritance)

– Social trends

– Whether the testator has a justified and reasonable reason for concluding the contract

– Economic strength of the defendant

– The economic power of the testator

– The difference between the sale price and the actual Dec

– Domestic relations

The title cancellation and registration case that will be filed as a result of the deceased agreement is not subject to the statute of limitations and rights reduction periods. After the death of the person who left the inheritance, this claim can always be made without being subject to a period of reduction in rights. According to the established case law decisions, the case of cancellation and registration of the title deed, which will be filed as a result of Muris muvazaa, can be proved with any evidence.

 

The Supreme Court’s Decision on the issue is as follows;

T.C.YARGITAY1. IT’S THE LAW OFFICE. 2014/18830K. 2017/1517T. 28.3.2017
“DECISION : The case is related to the request to cancel and register the title deed based on the legal reason of the Deceased consent.

The plaintiffs, who left a common heritage …grandfather’s heirs for the purpose of smuggling of parcel No. 61 No. 1 warehouse in 1323 as the owner of the immovable Island, the abode of the defendant No. 2 skilled with the chapter’s grandson, ’or that is conveyed by showing the sales by their mother, referred to assign filed was denied, but at the stage of Appeal, mother’s muris grounds for rejection of amended and approved by the estate due to the invalidation of that, the right to sue them in the past, were collusive, by claiming that the assignment, they requested that the disputed independent sections be registered in their names at the rate of inheritance shares with the cancellation of land registry records.

The defendant reported that he bought the real estate subject to contention for a price of 22,000 euros, murisin sold the real estate due to resentment against the plaintiffs’ mother and made a large donation to the mosque in his hometown … district, bought it himself not to be sold to third parties, the sale was real, and defended the rejection of the case.

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proven.

From the contents of the file and the collected evidence, it is fixed that murisin has assigned the entire dwelling No. 2 with a 2/6 share of warehouse No. 1 on parcel No. 1323 ada 61, the subject of the case, and the entire dwelling No. 2 to the defendant’s grandson … by selling it on 17/09/2004.

As is known; in practice and in teaching “the plaintiffs, who left a common heritage …grandfather’s heirs for the purpose of smuggling of parcel No. 61 No. 1 warehouse in 1323 as the owner of the immovable Island, the abode of the defendant No. 2 skilled with the chapter’s grandson, ’or that is conveyed by showing the sales by their mother, referred to assign filed was denied, but at the stage of Appeal, mother’s muris grounds for rejection of amended and approved by the estate due to the invalidation of that, the right to sue them in the past, were collusive, by claiming that the assignment, they requested that the disputed independent sections be registered in their names at the rate of inheritance shares with the cancellation of land registry records.

The defendant reported that he bought the real estate subject to contention for a price of 22,000 euros, murisin sold the real estate due to resentment against the plaintiffs’ mother and made a large donation to the mosque in his hometown … district, bought it himself not to be sold to third parties, the sale was real, and defended the rejection of the case.

The court decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proven.

From the contents of the file and the collected evidence, it is fixed that murisin has assigned the entire dwelling No. 2 with a 2/6 share of warehouse No. 1 on parcel No. 1323 ada 61, the subject of the case, and the entire dwelling No. 2 to the defendant’s grandson … by selling it on 17/09/2004.

As is known, muvazaa, defined as a “deceived collision ” in practice and teaching, is a type of relative (mevsuf-skilled) collision by its nature. The person who inherits the property in question really wants to make a contract and transfer his/her registered real estate. However, in order to deprive his heir of the right to inherit, he transfers his real estate, which he actually wants to donate, by hiding his main purpose, by explaining his will in accordance with the contract of sale or maintenance until death in the official contract he made in the deed.

In this case, as explained in the established Supreme Court case law and the Decision to Merge the Case Law No. 1/2 of 1.4.1974, the apparent contract does not comply with the real will of the parties, the secret donation agreement is also 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK)., 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). (213 of the Code of Obligations (BK).) and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law. since it lacks the form conditions provided for in its articles, all heirs whose right to inheritance has been violated, with or without a reserved share, can file a lawsuit to determine the invalidity of the official contract due to muvazaa and cancel the title deed registration created on the basis of it.

It should be noted immediately that the achievement of a healthy, fair and correct resolution of such disputes depends on the fact that the true direction of the guarantee to the defendant, in other words, reveals the original will and purpose of the testator in a way that leaves no room for hesitation. Since it is often difficult to determine and clarify the true will and purpose, which is an internal problem and is hidden, it is of great importance to evaluate the evidence in this direction together and correctly, as well as to collect it completely. For this purpose, it is necessary to take advantage of such phenomena as customs and traditions of the country and region, social trends, the usual course of events, whether the testator has Dec Decency and reasonable reason for concluding the contract, whether the respondent has purchasing power, the difference between the sale price and the actual value at the date of the contract, the human relationship between the parties and the testator.

As for the concrete case, there is a prior animosity between Muris and the plaintiffs’ mother, which is based on evidence by the plaintiff … with the Family Court’s decree No. 28/12/2004 and 2003/218 E 2004/923 K, it can be understood from the fact that Muris has Decriminalized her daughter from the will in the form of an arrangement dated 08/02/2005, which is also based on evidence by the plaintiff …1. Muris’s wife, who was heard in the file of the Court of First Instance numbered 2008/178 E …; Muris, the girls’get mad because e 1 and No. 2 independent departments involved in the case to which he declares to have been transferred free of charge, listening to the file in his hand again, witness for the prosecution …’s; telling himself that he declared in a real trading is not the health of Muris, a need to file a proof of the presence of Muris to sell goods has not been reflected where these issues are evaluated as a whole, which is done when the assignment is for sale and it is understood that the heirs of collusive.

As a result, it is erroneous to make a decision in writing with a erroneous assessment, while the case should be accepted, taking into account that the phenomenon of collision has been proven.

CONCLUSION : The appeal of the plaintiffs’ attorney is in place for the reason described. With its adoption, the provision (provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100.article 428 of HUMK No. 1086 (by sending).according to the article 1.480.00 for the acting appellants who come to the HEARING in accordance with the Attorney Fee Tariff, which entered into force on 02.01.2017, to be OVERTURNED.TL. it was unanimously decided on 28.03.2017 that the power of attorney fee for the hearing should be taken away from the appellant and the advance fee received should be returned to the appellant.a collision defined as a ”collision ” is a type of relative (seasonal) collision due to its nature. The inheritor of the said collision really wants to make a contract and transfer the real estate to the deed. However, in order to deprive his heir of the right to inherit, he transfers his real estate, which he actually wants to donate, by hiding his main purpose, by explaining his will in accordance with the contract of sale or maintenance until death in the official contract he made in the deed.

In this case, as explained in the established Supreme Court case law and the Decision to Merge the Case Law No. 1/2 of 1.4.1974, the apparent contract does not comply with the real will of the parties, the secret donation agreement is also 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK)., 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK). (213 of the Code of Obligations (BK).) and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law. since it lacks the form conditions provided for in its articles, all heirs whose right to inheritance has been violated, with or without a reserved share, can file a lawsuit to determine the invalidity of the official contract due to muvazaa and cancel the title deed registration created on the basis of it.

It should be noted immediately that the achievement of a healthy, fair and correct resolution of such disputes depends on the fact that the true direction of the guarantee to the defendant, in other words, reveals the original will and purpose of the testator in a way that leaves no room for hesitation. Since it is often difficult to determine and clarify the true will and purpose, which is an internal problem and is hidden, it is of great importance to evaluate the evidence in this direction together and correctly, as well as to collect it completely. For this purpose, it is necessary to take advantage of such phenomena as customs and traditions of the country and region, social trends, the usual course of events, whether the testator has Dec Decency and reasonable reason for concluding the contract, whether the respondent has purchasing power, the difference between the sale price and the actual value at the date of the contract, the human relationship between the parties and the testator.

As for the concrete case, it can be understood that there was a prior animosity between the Deceased and the plaintiffs’ mother, which was based on evidence by the plaintiff … the Family Court’s decision No. 28/12/2004 and 2003/218 E 2004/923 K and the will in the form of arranging for the deceased ‘s daughter … dated 08/02/2005, and the inheritance …1, which was also based on evidence by the plaintiff. Muris’s wife, who was heard in the file of the Court of First Instance numbered 2008/178 E …; Muris, the girls’get mad because e 1 and No. 2 independent departments involved in the case to which he declares to have been transferred free of charge, listening to the file in his hand again, witness for the prosecution …’s; telling himself that he declared in a real trading is not the health of Muris, a need to file a proof of the presence of Muris to sell goods has not been reflected where these issues are evaluated as a whole, which is done when the assignment is for sale and it is understood that the heirs of collusive.

As a result, it is erroneous to make a decision in writing with a erroneous assessment, while the case should be accepted, taking into account that the phenomenon of collision has been proven.

CONCLUSION : The appeal of the plaintiffs’ attorney is in place for the reason described. With its adoption, the provision (provisional Article 3 of Law No. 6100.article 428 of HUMK No. 1086 (by sending).according to the article 1.480.00 for the acting appellants who come to the HEARING in accordance with the Attorney Fee Tariff, which entered into force on 02.01.2017, to be OVERTURNED.TL. it was unanimously decided on 28.03.2017 that the power of attorney fee for the hearing should be taken away from the appellant and the advance fee received should be returned to the appellant.”

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