T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
1. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2016\/18465 E., 2020\/1954 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130:ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130
\nDAVA T\u00dcR\u00dc: TAPU \u0130PTAL\u0130 VE TESC\u0130L<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 sonunda, yerel mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin olarak verilen karar davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla dosya incelendi, Tetkik Hakimi …\u2019un raporu okundu, a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendi, gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc;<\/p>\n
-KARAR-<\/p>\n
Dava, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Davac\u0131, mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131 …\u2019ten intikal eden 69 par\u00e7a ta\u015f\u0131nmazda …\u2019e ait paylar\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n payda\u015flar aras\u0131nda r\u0131zai taksim yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …\u2019i vekil tayin etti\u011fini, vekilin ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki pay oran\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almayarak , hak ve menfaatlerini g\u00f6zetmeden payla\u015f\u0131m yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kendisini zararland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek t\u00fcm ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile hakkaniyet gere\u011fince tekrar taksim yap\u0131larak ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131lar, yap\u0131lan taksim i\u015fleminin davac\u0131n\u0131n bilgisi dahilinde oldu\u011funu, vekilin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n haklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zetti\u011fini, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011funu belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015flard\u0131r. Mahkemece, taksim i\u015fleminin davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan 27.05.2004 tarihinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 146.maddesi gere\u011fince 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve toplanan delillerden; davac\u0131 … ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …, …,… ve …\u2019in … 2.Noterli\u011fi\u2019nin 29.04.1997 tarih ve 11748 yevmiye numaral\u0131 vekaletnamesi ile T\u00fcrkiye Cumhuriyeti s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131ndaki mirasb\u0131rakanlar\u0131ndan intikal etmi\u015f veya edecek ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n intikal i\u015flemleri, di\u011fer hissedarlarla diledi\u011fi \u015fekil ve \u015fartlarda anla\u015fmas\u0131, taksim, tefrik, vs, bir \u00e7ok i\u015flemleri yapmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …\u2019i vekil tayin ettikleri, davac\u0131 ve di\u011fer payda\u015flar …,… ve … ad\u0131na vekaleten vekil …\u2019in, di\u011fer payda\u015f …\u2019in ise asaleten yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 27.05.2004 tarih,3262 yevmiye nolu i\u015flemle davac\u0131 ve di\u011fer payda\u015flara ait 68 par\u00e7a ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki paylara ili\u015fkin taksim yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, taksim sonucu bir k\u0131s\u0131m ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n 1\/3\u2019er paylarla davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131 … ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 … ad\u0131na , bir k\u0131s\u0131m ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ise daval\u0131lar … ve … ad\u0131na tescil edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil istekli davalar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ya da hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreye tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131zd\u0131r.Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun temsil ve vekalet akdini d\u00fczenleyen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re, vekalet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcvenine dayan\u0131r. Vekilin bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu bu g\u00fcven unsurundan, onun vekil edenin yarar\u0131na ve iradesine uygun davran\u0131\u015f y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden do\u011far.6098 s. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda (TBK) sadakat ve \u00f6zen borcu, vekilin vekil edene kar\u015f\u0131 en \u00f6nde gelen borcu kabul edilmi\u015f ve 506. maddesinde (818 s. Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 390.) maddesinde aynen; “Vekil, vek\u00e2let borcunu bizzat ifa etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Ancak vekile yetki verildi\u011fi veya durumun zorunlu ya da team\u00fcl\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde vekil, i\u015fi ba\u015fkas\u0131na yapt\u0131rabilir.Vekil \u00fcstlendi\u011fi i\u015f ve hizmetleri, vek\u00e2let verenin hakl\u0131 menfaatlerini g\u00f6zeterek, sadakat ve \u00f6zenle y\u00fcr\u00fctmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Vekilin \u00f6zen borcundan do\u011fan sorumlulu\u011funun belirlenmesinde, benzer alanda i\u015f ve hizmetleri \u00fcstlenen basiretli bir vekilin g\u00f6stermesi gereken davran\u0131\u015f esas al\u0131n\u0131r.” h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla vekil, vekil edenin yarar\u0131na ve iradesine uygun hareket etme, onu zararland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flardan ka\u00e7\u0131nma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Vek\u00e2letin kapsam\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015fse, g\u00f6r\u00fclecek i\u015fin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re belirlenir. (TBK’nin 504\/1) S\u00f6zle\u015fmede vekaletin nas\u0131l yerine getirilece\u011fi hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmasa veya yap\u0131lan i\u015flem d\u0131\u015f temsil yetkisinin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde kalsa dahi vekilin bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daima mevcuttur. Hatta malik taraf\u0131ndan vekilin bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, diledi\u011fi bedelle diledi\u011fi kimseye sat\u0131\u015f yapabilece\u011fi \u015feklinde yetkili k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131, sataca\u011f\u0131 kimseyi dahi belirtmesi, ona d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131n\u0131, sadakat ve \u00f6zen borcunu g\u00f6z ard\u0131 etmek suretiyle, makul say\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karak sat\u0131\u015f yapma hakk\u0131n\u0131 vermez. Vekil edenin yarar\u0131 ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak bir eylem veya i\u015flem yapan vekil de\u011finilen maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca sorumlu olur. Bu sorumluluk BK’de daha hafif olan i\u015f\u00e7inin sorumlulu\u011funa k\u0131yasen belirlenirken, TBK’de benzer alanda i\u015f ve hizmetleri \u00fcslenen basiretli bir vekilin sorumlulu\u011fu esas al\u0131narak daha da a\u011f\u0131rla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u00d6te yandan, vekil ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapan ki\u015fi 4721 s. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) 3. maddesi anlam\u0131nda iyi niyetli ise yani vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmiyor veya kendisinden beklenen \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermesine ra\u011fmen bilmesine olanak yoksa, vekil ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ge\u00e7erlidir ve vekil edeni ba\u011flar. Vekil vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullansa dahi bu husus vekil ile vekalet eden aras\u0131nda bir i\u00e7 sorun olarak kal\u0131r, vekil ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapan ki\u015finin kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 haklara etkili olamaz.Ne var ki, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekil ile \u00e7\u0131kar ve i\u015fbirli\u011fi i\u00e7erisinde ise veya k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olup vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 biliyor veya bilmesi gerekiyorsa vekil edenin s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 say\u0131lmamas\u0131, TMK’nin 2. maddesinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal bir sonucu olarak kabul edilmelidir. S\u00f6z konusu yasa maddesi buyurucu nitelik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan hakim taraf\u0131ndan kendili\u011finden (resen) g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 zorunludur. Aksine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce k\u00f6t\u00fc niyeti te\u015fvik etmek en az\u0131ndan ona g\u00f6z yummak olur. Oysa b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f hukuk sistemlerinde k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet korunmam\u0131\u015f daima mahkum edilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim uygulama ve bilimsel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler bu y\u00f6nde geli\u015fmi\u015f ve kararl\u0131l\u0131k kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Somut olaya gelince; mahkemece belirtilen ilkeler g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmadan ve gerekli ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar yap\u0131lmadan sonuca gidildi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca; vek\u00e2let g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayanan davalar\u0131n herhangi bir zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 veya hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreye ba\u011fl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6zetilerek, yukar\u0131da belirtilen ilkeler de g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmak sureti ile gerekli ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131n yap\u0131lmas\u0131, delillerin toplanmas\u0131, i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesi ve has\u0131l olacak sonuca g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekirken yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ve gerek\u00e7eyle yaz\u0131l\u0131 bi\u00e7imde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 do\u011fru de\u011fildir.Davac\u0131 vekilinin yerinde bulunan temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile, h\u00fckm\u00fcn (6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Yasan\u0131n ge\u00e7ici 3.maddesi yollamas\u0131 ile) 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 HUMK’un 428.maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan harc\u0131n temyiz edene geri verilmesine, 01.06.2020 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 01.06.2020 tarihli 2016\/18465 Esas 2020\/1954 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi 2016\/18465 E., 2020\/1954 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130:ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130 DAVA T\u00dcR\u00dc: TAPU \u0130PTAL\u0130 VE TESC\u0130L Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 sonunda, yerel mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin olarak verilen karar davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla dosya incelendi, Tetkik Hakimi …\u2019un raporu okundu, a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendi, gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc; -KARAR- Dava, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Davac\u0131, mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131 …\u2019ten intikal eden 69 par\u00e7a ta\u015f\u0131nmazda …\u2019e ait paylar\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n payda\u015flar aras\u0131nda r\u0131zai taksim yap\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …\u2019i vekil tayin etti\u011fini, vekilin ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki pay oran\u0131n\u0131 dikkate almayarak , hak ve menfaatlerini g\u00f6zetmeden payla\u015f\u0131m yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kendisini zararland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek t\u00fcm ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile hakkaniyet gere\u011fince tekrar taksim yap\u0131larak ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131lar, yap\u0131lan taksim i\u015fleminin davac\u0131n\u0131n bilgisi dahilinde oldu\u011funu, vekilin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n haklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zetti\u011fini, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011funu belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015flard\u0131r. Mahkemece, taksim i\u015fleminin davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan 27.05.2004 tarihinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, TBK\u2019n\u0131n 146.maddesi gere\u011fince 10 y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresinin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve toplanan delillerden; davac\u0131 … ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 …, …,… ve …\u2019in … 2.Noterli\u011fi\u2019nin 29.04.1997 tarih ve 11748 yevmiye …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56663","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n