T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2023\/953 E., 2024\/504 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi
\nEK KARAR TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 24.02.2021
\nSAYISI : 2023\/72 E., 2023\/189 K.
\nKARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne
\n\u00d6ZEL DA\u0130RE KARARI : Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesinin 19.12.2022 tarihli ve 2021\/7024 Esas, 2022\/7852 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 BOZMA karar\u0131<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tapu iptali ve tescil, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde tazminat davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davac\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali ve tescile y\u00f6nelik talebinin reddine, tazminata y\u00f6nelik talebinin ise k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince taraf vekillerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 daval\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme karar\u0131 daval\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan g\u00fcndem ve dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA
\nDavac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin tek malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan \u0130stanbul ili \u015ei\u015fli il\u00e7esi Me\u015frutiyet Mahallesi 958 ada 5 parsel 5 No.lu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc satarak daha k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck birden fazla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinmeyi ve bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 kiraya vermeyi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, bu hususu k\u0131zlar\u0131 olan daval\u0131lara s\u00f6yledi\u011fini ve onlar\u0131n da onay\u0131n\u0131 ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 17.09.2012 tarihinde 890.000,00 TL’ye satt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lara g\u00fcvenerek 800.000,00 TL’sini daval\u0131 …\u2019n\u0131n Yap\u0131 Kredi Bankas\u0131ndaki hesab\u0131na, kalan 90.000,00 TL’yi ise daval\u0131 …’ya elden olacak \u015fekilde verdi\u011fini, daval\u0131lar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilinden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paralarla Be\u015fikta\u015f il\u00e7esi T\u00fcrkali Mahallesi 321 ada 82 parsel, 3 ve 4 No.lu d\u00fckkanlar\u0131, \u015ei\u015fli il\u00e7esi \u015ei\u015fli Mahallesi 1024 ada 40 parsel 9 No.lu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc ve \u015ei\u015fli il\u00e7esi Miralay Mahallesi 9919 ada 1 parsel 2 No.lu bodrum kat d\u00fckkan vas\u0131fl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kendi adlar\u0131na sat\u0131n ald\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar\u0131n inan\u00e7 anla\u015fmas\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 bu fiilleri \u00fczerine m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131lardan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n kendisine devrini istemi\u015fse de daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan bu teklifin kabul edilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek \u00f6ncelikle daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iptal edilerek davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tesciline, bu talep m\u00fcmk\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fclmez ise daval\u0131lara verilen 890.000,00 TL’nin tapuya tescil tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP
\nDaval\u0131lar vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131lara herhangi bir para \u00f6demesi yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava dilek\u00e7esinde belirtilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan kendi birikimleri ile iktisap edildi\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin 20.04.2018 tarihli ve 2013\/38 Esas, 2018\/160 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 700.000,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n 80\/89 oran\u0131nda daval\u0131 …’dan, 9\/89 oran\u0131nda daval\u0131 …’dan dava tarihinden itibaren yasal faizi ile birlikte al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin alacak talebi ile davac\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali ve tescil isteminin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130ST\u0130NAF
\nA. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekilleri istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 02.05.2019 tarihli ve 2019\/192 Esas, 2019\/788 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; davac\u0131 ile daval\u0131lar aras\u0131nda kurulan s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bir inan\u00e7 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi de\u011fil davac\u0131n\u0131n sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 para ile yine davac\u0131 ad\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nmaz al\u0131nmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin bir vek\u00e2let s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi oldu\u011fu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na al\u0131n\u0131p devrine ili\u015fkin bir inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem anla\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bir davada maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrmek taraflara hukuki nitelendirmeyi yapman\u0131n ise h\u00e2kime ait oldu\u011fu, bu h\u00e2liyle mahkemece davan\u0131n inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem olarak nitelendirilmesiyle m\u00fclkiyetin nakline ili\u015fkin istemde yaz\u0131l\u0131 kan\u0131t bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, kabule g\u00f6re de alacak y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kurulan h\u00fck\u00fcmde daval\u0131lar\u0131n sorumlulu\u011funun 80\/89-9\/89 olarak belirlenmesinin infaza elveri\u015fli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle taraf vekillerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na, dosyan\u0131n yeniden karar verilmek \u00fczere ilk derece mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin 18.12.2020 tarihli ve 2019\/193 Esas, 2020\/325 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6ncelikle tapu iptali ve tescil talebinde bulunulmu\u015f ise de daval\u0131lar\u0131n sonradan sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapusunun iptal edilerek davac\u0131ya intikal edilmesi i\u00e7in gerekli olan sebebe ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k (illilik) prensibine uygun yasal unsurlar\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, terditli olarak tazminat istemine gelince davac\u0131n\u0131n daha k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck \u00e7apta birden \u00e7ok ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n almas\u0131 i\u00e7in daval\u0131lara verdi\u011fi 700.000,00 TL kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinemedi\u011fi, daval\u0131lar\u0131n (babalar\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n alma konusunda) vek\u00e2let gere\u011fini yerine getirmedi\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re daval\u0131lar\u0131n bu bedeli davac\u0131ya geri verme borcu alt\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, bu bedelin vek\u00e2let veren davac\u0131ya geri verilmedi\u011finin daval\u0131lar\u0131n beyanlar\u0131nda kabul edildi\u011fi, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun ise savunman\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi yasa\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davac\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali ve tescile ili\u015fkin talebi sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan reddine, alaca\u011fa ili\u015fkin talebin k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 700.000,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n dava tarihinden itibaren yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131lardan yar\u0131 oran\u0131nda al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. \u0130ST\u0130NAF
\nA. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekilleri istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin 17.06.2021 tarihli ve 2021\/1582 Esas, 2021\/1677 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131yla; Dairenin \u00f6nceki karar\u0131 ile davan\u0131n nitelemesi yap\u0131larak davan\u0131n vek\u00e2let s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kapsam\u0131nda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi ve delillerin buna g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirilmesi gere\u011fi vurgulanm\u0131\u015f ise de ilk derece mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan bu niteleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesinde hata yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi \u00fcst\u00fcnde durulmayarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n rayi\u00e7 bedeline h\u00fckmedildi\u011fi, ne var ki davac\u0131n\u0131n bedele ili\u015fkin bir istinaf itiraz\u0131 bulunmay\u0131p sadece tapu istemlerinin kabul\u00fc y\u00f6n\u00fcnde istinaf itiraz\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dairece istinaf itirazlar\u0131 ile ba\u011fl\u0131 yap\u0131lan incelemede yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131\u011fa i\u015faret etmekle yetinildi\u011fi, daval\u0131 taraf, davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na iddian\u0131n geni\u015fletildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek istinaf itiraz\u0131nda bulunmu\u015f ise de davac\u0131n\u0131n dava dilek\u00e7esindeki maddi vak\u0131alarla ba\u011fl\u0131 bulundu\u011fu ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilip geni\u015fletilmedi\u011fi, sadece hukuki nitelemenin de\u011fi\u015ftirildi\u011fi ve hukuki nitelemenin hakim taraf\u0131ndan resen yap\u0131labilece\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla bu itiraz\u0131n do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi, daval\u0131 taraf kendi savunmalar\u0131nda ise maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirdi\u011fi, cevap dilek\u00e7esinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n kendi kazan\u0131mlar\u0131 ile al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren daval\u0131lar\u0131n sonradan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n paras\u0131n\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n verdi\u011fini ikrar etti\u011fi ancak ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu, hatta istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde, davac\u0131n\u0131n miras\u0131n\u0131 adalet ilkesine g\u00f6re payla\u015ft\u0131rma kast\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, maddi vak\u0131alar\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesi savunma yasa\u011f\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda olup mahkemece bu hususta delil toplanmamas\u0131nda bir yan\u0131lg\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 di\u011fer bir istinaf itiraz\u0131nda ise davac\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131m sat\u0131ma muvafakat etti\u011fi halde d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak i\u015f bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ancak daval\u0131 cevap dilek\u00e7esindeki savunmalar\u0131nda bu r\u0131za ve ba\u011f\u0131\u015ftan hi\u00e7 s\u00f6z edilmemi\u015f olup savunman\u0131n geni\u015fletilmesi niteli\u011finde bulunmas\u0131 yan\u0131nda dairenin \u00f6nceki karar\u0131nda davan\u0131n nitelemesi belirlenip davac\u0131n\u0131n inanarak ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na tescil ettirdi\u011fi iddias\u0131 bulunmay\u0131p ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n do\u011frudan kendi ad\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 i\u00e7in vekil tayin etti\u011fi iddias\u0131 bulundu\u011fu belirtildikten sonra yap\u0131lan bu ikrar\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmenin de m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VII. BOZMA VE BOZMADAN SONRAK\u0130 YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
A. Bozma Karar\u0131<\/p>\n
1. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lar vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile;
\n”…Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere T\u00fcrk Hukukunda inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flemleri do\u011frudan d\u00fczenleyen bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ancak uygulama ve \u00f6\u011fretide, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 26. (818 s. BK md.19.) maddesinde yer alan “s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc” ilkesi kapsam\u0131nda inan\u00e7l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin d\u00fczenlenebilece\u011fi ve ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi kabul edilmektedir.<\/p>\n
\u0130nan\u00e7 s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, inananla inan\u0131lan aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan, onlar\u0131n hak ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 belirleyen, inan\u00e7l\u0131 muamelenin sona erme sebeplerini ve devredilen hakk\u0131n, inan\u0131lan taraf\u0131ndan inanana geri verme (iade) \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir muameledir. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme, taraflar\u0131n\u0131n hak ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 kapsayan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir akit olup, alacak ve m\u00fclkiyetin naklinin hukuki sebebini te\u015fkil eder.<\/p>\n
\u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flemin taraflar\u0131n\u0131, inanan ve inan\u0131lan olu\u015fturur. Bir hakk\u0131 ya da nesneyi, g\u00fcvendi\u011fi bir ki\u015fiye inan\u00e7l\u0131 olarak devreden kimseye “inanan” ad\u0131 verilir. Devredilen hak veya nesneyi, kendisine ait bir hak olarak kendi yarar\u0131na, do\u011frudan do\u011fruya ve dolayl\u0131 olarak kullanan ki\u015fiye de “inan\u0131lan” denir. \u0130nanan\u0131n, inan\u0131lana inan\u00e7l\u0131 olarak kazand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 hak ya da nesne ise “inan\u00e7 konusu \u015fey” olarak nitelenir. \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 bir i\u015flemde, kazand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 i\u015flemin taraflar\u0131 ile bor\u00e7 do\u011furan anla\u015fman\u0131n taraflar\u0131 ayn\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 bir i\u015flem ile inanan, sahibi bulundu\u011fu bir m\u00fclkiyet veya alacak hakk\u0131n\u0131 inan\u0131lana kazand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flemle devretmekte ancak bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile de onu baz\u0131 y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler alt\u0131na sokmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flemde inan\u0131lan, hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ko\u015fullara uymay\u0131, ama\u00e7 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fince veya s\u00fcre dolunca hak veya nesneyi tekrar inanana (veya onun g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye) devretmeyi y\u00fcklenmektedir. \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem, kazand\u0131rmay\u0131 yapan ki\u015fiye yani inanana belirli \u015fartlar ger\u00e7ekle\u015fince, kazand\u0131rman\u0131n iadesini isteme hakk\u0131 sa\u011flayan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn yerine getirilmemesi h\u00e2linde bunun dava yoluyla h\u00fckmen yerine getirilmesi istenebilir.
\n\u00d6te yandan; vekalet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi vekil ile vekil eden aras\u0131nda \u00f6zel g\u00fcven ili\u015fkisine dayal\u0131 olarak kurulan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme olup vekil, vekil edenin menfaatine i\u015f g\u00f6rmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Taraflar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ve birbirine uygun irade beyan\u0131 ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapabilecekleri gibi TBK 503. madde kapsam\u0131nda \u00f6rt\u00fcl\u00fc irade beyan\u0131 ile de vekalet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kurulabilir.<\/p>\n
Kural olarak vekalet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r ancak, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 gibi \u00f6zel hallerde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin resmi bi\u00e7imde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur.
\nYukar\u0131da belirtilen yasal d\u00fczenlemeler kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda somut olayda; davac\u0131n\u0131n dava a\u00e7arken bildirdi\u011fi maddi vak\u0131alarda daval\u0131 k\u0131zlar\u0131na kendi ad\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nmaz al\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in vekalet verdi\u011fi ancak, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Bundan ayr\u0131, bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun (TBK) 285. maddesinde ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi \u201cba\u011f\u0131\u015flayan\u0131n sa\u011flararas\u0131 sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmak \u00fczere, malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanana kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131ks\u0131z olarak bir kazand\u0131rma yapmay\u0131 \u00fcstlendi\u011fi s\u00f6zle\u015fme\u201d olarak tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015f, 290. maddesinde de ko\u015fullu ba\u011f\u0131\u015flamaya yer verilmi\u015f buna g\u00f6re; \u201cba\u011f\u0131\u015flaman\u0131n bir ko\u015fula ba\u011flanarak\u201d yap\u0131labilece\u011fi ifade edilmi\u015ftir. 288. maddesinde \u201cbir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n veya ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki ayni bir hakk\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanmas\u0131 s\u00f6z\u00fc vermenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi ancak resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r\u201d, \u201c\u015fekle uyulmamas\u0131 sebebiyle ge\u00e7ersiz olan ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama s\u00f6z\u00fc verme, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flayan taraf\u0131ndan yerine getirildi\u011finde elden ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama h\u00fckm\u00fcndedir. Ancak ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi resmi \u015fekle ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olan ba\u011f\u0131\u015flamalarda bu h\u00fck\u00fcm uygulanmaz\u201d d\u00fczenlemesine yer verilmi\u015ftir. 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 705. maddesine g\u00f6re de, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetinin kazan\u0131lmas\u0131 tescille olur. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 706. maddesinde de “ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetinin devrini ama\u00e7layan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 resmi \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f olmalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r” d\u00fczenlemesine yer verilerek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetinin devri amac\u0131yla yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erlilik \u015fart\u0131 oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a ifade edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Ba\u011f\u0131\u015ftan d\u00f6nme (r\u00fccu) 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 295. (818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 244.) maddesinde aynen; \u201cBa\u011f\u0131\u015flayan, a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki durumlardan biri ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015fse, elden ba\u011f\u0131\u015flamay\u0131 veya yerine getirdi\u011fi ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc geri alabilir ve ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan\u0131n istem tarihindeki zenginle\u015fmesi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcnde, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama konusunun geri verilmesini isteyebilir:<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flayana veya yak\u0131nlar\u0131ndan birine kar\u015f\u0131 a\u011f\u0131r bir su\u00e7 i\u015flemi\u015fse.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flayana veya onun ailesinden bir kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 kanundan do\u011fan y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerine \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranm\u0131\u015fsa.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan, y\u00fcklemeli ba\u011f\u0131\u015flamada hakl\u0131 bir sebep olmaks\u0131z\u0131n y\u00fcklemeyi yerine getirmemi\u015fse.\u201d \u015feklinde h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalara g\u00f6re somut olayda; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 800.000,00 TL’nin banka havalesi ile 90.000,00 TL’nin ise elden daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fi iddia edilmekte ise de; bu iddia usule uygun bir delille ispatlanm\u0131\u015f de\u011fildir. Daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na al\u0131nan, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n, davac\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderdi\u011fini iddia etti\u011fi paralarla al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve istenildi\u011fi takdirde ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n davac\u0131ya iade edilece\u011fine dair yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir belge bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, dosya kapsam\u0131nda inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahsedilemeyecektir.
\n\u00d6te yandan, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan daval\u0131lara verilmi\u015f bir vekaletname de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, vekaletin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 da s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Bundan ayr\u0131; daval\u0131lardan …, 18.12.2020 tarihli celsede davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015fse de; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla temlikinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi resmi \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Ortada resmi olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir ba\u011f\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yoktur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla devredildi\u011fi de s\u00f6ylenemez. Bir an i\u00e7in ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bedelinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131\u015f amac\u0131yla verildi\u011fi kabul edilse dahi, bu kez 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 295. (818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 244.) maddesi gere\u011fince ba\u011f\u0131\u015ftan r\u00fccu \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmas\u0131 halinde, davac\u0131 verdi\u011fi paray\u0131 geri alabilirdi. Ne var ki, somut olayda ba\u011f\u0131\u015ftan r\u00fccu ko\u015fullar\u0131 da olu\u015fmu\u015f de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar sonucunda; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iddia olunan vak\u0131alar ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, h\u00fckm\u00fcn bu nedenle bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir…” gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince Verilen Direnme Karar\u0131
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile; \u00f6nceki karardaki gerek\u00e7e ile direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VIII. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen direnme karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lar vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\nDaval\u0131lar vekili; ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi olmayan s\u00f6zl\u00fc vek\u00e2let verilmesinin hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, vek\u00e2let ili\u015fkisinin somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fcvekkillerinin kendi paralar\u0131 ile al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131dan kendilerine verilen paran\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendilerinin istinaf mahkemesinin vek\u00e2let s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi nitelemesini kabul etmedikleri i\u00e7in kendi belirledikleri niteleme \u00fczerinden savunma yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, savunmay\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirmediklerini, taraflar aras\u0131nda vek\u00e2let s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 hareket etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k
\nDirenme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; tapu iptali ve tescil, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde tazminat istemine ili\u015fkin eldeki davada, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iddia olunan vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispatlan\u0131p ispatlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
D. Gerek\u00e7e
\n1. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 33, 187, 188 ve 190 \u0131nc\u0131 maddeleri,<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 6 nc\u0131 maddesi,<\/p>\n
05.02.1947 tarihli ve 1945\/20 Esas, 1947\/6 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131,<\/p>\n
2. De\u011ferlendirme
\n1. Bilindi\u011fi gibi 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 33 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi gere\u011fi h\u00e2kim, bir davada sadece taraflar\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc maddi vak\u0131alar ve talep sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olup, dayand\u0131klar\u0131 kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmleriyle ve onlar\u0131n hukuki nitelendirmeleriyle s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n, kanunlar\u0131 resen uygulayarak iddia ve savunmadaki talepleri karara ba\u011flamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Tabi olacaklar\u0131 kurallar ile etki ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, taraflarca dile getirilen taleplerin hukuki nitelendirmesi b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem arz etmektedir.<\/p>\n
2. Bu do\u011frultuda \u00f6ncelikle inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem kavram\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda yarar vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem kavram\u0131, T\u00fcrk Hukuk L\u00fbgat\u0131nda; “hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 taraflarca bilinen ve ekonomik ama\u00e7lar\u0131 a\u015fan, b\u00f6ylece hak edinilecek ki\u015fiyi durumu bilmeyen \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filer \u00f6n\u00fcnde ya da kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daha iyi duruma getiren hukuki i\u015flem, itimada m\u00fcstenit hukuki muamele” \u015feklinde ifade edilmi\u015ftir (T\u00fcrk Hukuk Kurumu, T\u00fcrk Hukuk L\u00fbgat\u0131, Cilt I, Ankara, 2021, s. 573).<\/p>\n
4. \u0130nan\u00e7 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131 05.02.1947 tarihli ve 1945\/20 Esas, 1947\/6 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131ndan almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. S\u00f6z konusu kararda; eski hukuka g\u00f6re m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ve ge\u00e7erli olan muvazaa ve nam-\u0131 m\u00fcstear iddialar\u0131n\u0131n, Medeni Kanun\u2019un y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden sonra ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar hakk\u0131nda dinlenip dinlenemeyece\u011fi tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
6. An\u0131lan kararda; \u00e7e\u015fitli sebep ve ama\u00e7larla bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kayd\u0131na ger\u00e7ek malik yerine ba\u015fka bir nam ve bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmede akitlerden biri yerine \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir \u015fahs\u0131n g\u00f6sterilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu, bu gibi h\u00e2llerde vekilin kendi nam\u0131na ve m\u00fcvekkili hesab\u0131na yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tasarruflarda oldu\u011fu gibi hukuki bir durum veya herhangi bir maksatla \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131slardan ger\u00e7e\u011fi gizleme gayesi g\u00fcd\u00fclebilece\u011fi, “k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli ve haks\u0131z gizlemeler” d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, belirtilen olas\u0131l\u0131klara g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131lacak bir davan\u0131n, ger\u00e7ekten, ya mevcut bir hakka dayanarak bir el de\u011fi\u015ftirme veya bir hakk\u0131n korunmas\u0131 niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131yaca\u011f\u0131; bu durumda, halefiyeti d\u00fczeltme amac\u0131yla \u00f6ncelikle m\u00fclkiyetin vekile aidiyeti d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclse bile, temsil h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fundan bunun korunmas\u0131 ve devam\u0131na h\u00fckmolunamayaca\u011f\u0131, zira Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun “m\u00fcvekkil vekiline kar\u015f\u0131 muhtelif bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 ifa edince vekilin kendi nam\u0131na ve m\u00fcvekkili hesab\u0131na \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc \u015fah\u0131staki alaca\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcvekkilin olur” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi do\u011frulad\u0131\u011f\u0131na de\u011finildikten sonra sonu\u00e7 olarak; nam-\u0131 m\u00fcstear davalar\u0131n\u0131n dinlenebilir oldu\u011funa ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 delil ile ispat\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn bulundu\u011funa karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem, inanan\u0131n (itimat edenin) bir hakk\u0131n\u0131 belirli bir s\u00fcre veya ama\u00e7la inan\u0131lana ge\u00e7irmeyi, inan\u0131lan\u0131n da inanan\u0131n emir ve talimatlar\u0131na g\u00f6re kullan\u0131p ama\u00e7 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fince veya s\u00fcre dolunca hakk\u0131 tekrar inanana devretmeyi y\u00fcklendi\u011fi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler olarak tan\u0131mlanabilir (Eraslan, \u00d6zkaya: \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 \u0130\u015flem ve Muvazaa Davalar\u0131, Ankara 2004, s. 25).<\/p>\n
8. Yarg\u0131sal kararlarda ise inan\u00e7l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme, inan\u0131lan taraf\u0131n elde etti\u011fi hakk\u0131, taraflarca g\u00fcd\u00fclen ama\u00e7 sona erdikten veya belirli bir s\u00fcre ge\u00e7tikten sonra inanana veya \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye devretme taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7eren bir anla\u015fma olarak tarif edilmi\u015ftir (HGK, 13.05.1992 tarihli ve 1992\/14-249 Esas,1992\/323 Karar ).<\/p>\n
9. \u0130nan\u00e7l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile inanan (itimat eden) bir m\u00fclkiyet veya alacak hakk\u0131n\u0131 inan\u0131lana (mutemede) devretmekte, bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile de inan\u0131lan ki\u015finin hak ve yetkilerini s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmakt\u0131r. \u0130nan\u0131lan hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ko\u015fullara uymay\u0131, ama\u00e7 ger\u00e7ekle\u015fince veya s\u00fcre dolunca tekrar hakk\u0131 inanana iade etmeyi y\u00fck\u00fcmlenmektedir.<\/p>\n
10. T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar kapsam\u0131nda somut olaya gelince; davac\u0131 dava dilek\u00e7esinde, ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc satarak birden fazla daha k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinmeyi ve kiraya vermeyi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 890.000,00 TL’ye satt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lara g\u00fcvenerek 800.000,00 TL’sini daval\u0131 …’in banka hesab\u0131na, kalan 90.000,00 TL’yi ise daval\u0131 …’e elden olacak \u015fekilde verdi\u011fini, daval\u0131lar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkilden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paralarla ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131klar\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131lardan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n kendisine devrini istemi\u015fse de daval\u0131larca bu teklifin kabul edilmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek tapu iptali ve tescil, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde tazminat talep etti\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, somut olayda istemin inan\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hukuk Genel Kurulunca kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
11. Bu kapsamda an\u0131lan (\u00a74-6) i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7 b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde ifade olundu\u011fu \u00fczere, inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015fleme dayal\u0131 olup dinlenirli\u011fi kabul edilen iddialar\u0131n ispat\u0131, \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 olmayan yaz\u0131l\u0131 delildir. Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ise yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir belge dosya sunulmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. \u00d6te yandan davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n dava a\u00e7arken bildirdi\u011fi maddi vak\u0131alarda daval\u0131 k\u0131zlar\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nmaz al\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in banka arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve elden para verdi\u011fi ancak, daval\u0131lar ad\u0131na al\u0131nan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline devredilmedi\u011fi iddias\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131, daval\u0131lar davac\u0131n\u0131n herhangi bir para \u00f6demesi yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan kendi birikimleri ile iktisap edildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015fler, yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ise ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fini beyan etmi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
13. Bu a\u015famada ispat, ispat y\u00fck\u00fc ve ikrar kavramlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
14. Dava konusu edilen bir hakk\u0131n ve buna kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan savunman\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 vak\u0131alar\u0131n (olgular\u0131n) var olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda mahkemeye kanaat verilmesi i\u015flemine ispat denir.
\n15. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 187\/1 inci maddesi; \u201c\u0130spat\u0131n konusunu taraflar\u0131n \u00fczerinde anla\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etkili olabilecek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alar olu\u015fturur ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir\u201d \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. Vak\u0131a (olgu) ise, 03.03.2017 tarihli ve 2015\/2 Esas, 2017\/1 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; kendisine hukuki sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olaylar \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spat\u0131 gereken olaylar, olumlu vak\u0131alar olabilece\u011fi gibi olumsuz vak\u0131alar da olabilir.<\/p>\n
17. Di\u011fer taraftan h\u00e2kim, taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olan vak\u0131alar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini, kural olarak kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131ramaz. Bir olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini taraflar ispat etmelidir. Bir davada ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn hangi tarafa ait olaca\u011f\u0131 hususu ise 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 190 \u0131nc\u0131 maddesinde yer almakta olup; \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir.<\/p>\n
Kanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini olu\u015fturan vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen istisnalar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir\u201d \u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
18. Yukar\u0131da belirtilen maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin temel kural vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, bir vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan taraf ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc \u00fczerinde ta\u015f\u0131yacakt\u0131r. \u0130kinci f\u0131krada ise, karinelerin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn nas\u0131l belirlenece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 6 nc\u0131 maddesinde yer alan: \u201cKanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.” ifadesine paralel olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. \u00c7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in ise delillere ihtiya\u00e7 duyulmaktad\u0131r. Bu noktada kesin deliller aras\u0131nda say\u0131lan \u201cikrar\u201d kavram\u0131 hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda yarar vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 188 inci maddesinde taraflar veya vekillerinin mahkeme \u00f6n\u00fcnde ikrar ettikleri vak\u0131alar\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fmeli olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kaca\u011f\u0131 ve ispat\u0131n\u0131n gerekmedi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f, ancak ikrar\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
22. \u00d6\u011fretideki tan\u0131mlamalara g\u00f6re ise, ikrar (dar anlamda ikrar), g\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olan bir davada, taraflardan birinin, di\u011fer taraf\u00e7a ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen ve kendisi aleyhine hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furabilecek nitelik ta\u015f\u0131yan maddi vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu kabul etmesidir. Yarg\u0131tay uygulamas\u0131nda da, ikrara bu anlam y\u00fcklenmektedir (\u0130krar kavram\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 ve a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da ikrar\u0131n t\u00fcrlerine ili\u015fkin olarak yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in bak\u0131n\u0131z. Baki, Kuru: Hukuk Muhakemeleri Usul\u00fc, 6. Bask\u0131 Cilt:2, Ankara 2001, s.2037 ve devam\u0131; Saim, \u00dcst\u00fcnda\u011f: Medeni Yarg\u0131lama Hukuku, Cilt: 1-2, 3. Bas\u0131, \u0130stanbul 1984, s.549 ve devam\u0131;Necip, Bilge: Medeni Yarg\u0131lama Hukuku Dersleri, 3. Bask\u0131, Ankara 1978, s.510 ve devam\u0131; S\u00fcha, Tanr\u0131ver: T\u00fcrk Medeni Yarg\u0131lama Hukukunda \u0130krar\u0131n B\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcp B\u00f6l\u00fcnemeyece\u011fi Sorunu, T\u00fcrkiye Barolar Birli\u011fi Dergisi, 1993\/2, s. 212 ve devam\u0131).<\/p>\n
23. \u0130krardan s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in, bir taraf\u0131n bir vak\u0131a ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131, di\u011fer taraf\u0131n da bu vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu bildirmesi gerekir. \u0130krar\u0131n konusu, ancak kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc vak\u0131alar olabilir. Bir taraf\u0131n, kendisinin ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funu bildirmesi ikrar niteli\u011fi ta\u015f\u0131mayaca\u011f\u0131 gibi kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc hukuki sebepler de ikrara konu olamazlar.<\/p>\n
24. \u00d6\u011fretide ve uygulamada ikrar, kapsam\u0131na ve i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re t\u00fcrlere ayr\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Kapsam y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ikrar, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli olan maddi vak\u0131an\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 veya belli bir kesimini kapsayabilir. \u0130lkinde tam, ikincisinde ise k\u0131smi ikrar s\u00f6z konusudur.<\/p>\n
26. \u0130\u00e7eri\u011fi itibariyle ikrar ya basit (adi), ya vas\u0131fl\u0131 (mevsuf) ya da bile\u015fik (m\u00fcrekkep) nitelikte olabilir. Vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrara, gerek\u00e7eli ink\u00e2r da denilmektedir.<\/p>\n
27. Bir vak\u0131an\u0131n aleyhine oldu\u011fu kimse herhangi bir ilave yahut nitelik de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fi yapmaks\u0131z\u0131n, o vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011funu beyan etmi\u015fse basit ikrar s\u00f6z konusu olur. \u00d6rne\u011fin davac\u0131 daval\u0131ya \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 verdi\u011fi 1.000,00 TL’nin iadesi i\u00e7in dava a\u00e7ar, daval\u0131 da \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 olarak ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan ederse, bu beyan basit ikrar niteli\u011finde olup, ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu vak\u0131ay\u0131 \u00e7eki\u015fmeli olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bunlar\u0131n ayr\u0131ca kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131na gerek kalmaz (Murat, Atal\u0131 \/ \u0130brahim, Ermenek \/ Ersin, Erdo\u011fan: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Ankara 2022, s.474)<\/p>\n
28. Vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda, (ki buna gerek\u00e7eli inkar da denilmektedir) kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc maddi vak\u0131an\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilmekle birlikte, onun hukuki niteli\u011finin (vasf\u0131n\u0131n) ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclenden ba\u015fka oldu\u011fu bildirilir. \u00d6rne\u011fin daval\u0131n\u0131n, davac\u0131dan 1.000,00 TL ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ikrar etmesi, fakat bu paray\u0131 \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 olarak de\u011fil, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f olarak ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesi h\u00e2linde oldu\u011fu gibi. Daha somut bir anlat\u0131mla ikrar eden, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n talep sonucu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucu\/niteli\u011fi kabul etmemekte, o vak\u0131adan b\u00f6yle bir sonu\u00e7 \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lt\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmektedir. Birinci b\u00f6l\u00fcmde vak\u0131a ikrar edilerek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kmakta, ikinci b\u00f6l\u00fcmde ise niteleme ve do\u011fdu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen sonu\u00e7 ihtilafl\u0131 kalmakta ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla bu hususu kimin ispat etmesi gerekti\u011fi sorunu ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmaktad\u0131r. \u00d6\u011freti ve Yarg\u0131taydaki hakim g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe g\u00f6re, vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrar b\u00f6l\u00fcnemez, vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda bulunan taraf, ikrar etti\u011fi maddi vak\u0131a ile ilgili hukuki nitelendirmeye ili\u015fkin iddiay\u0131 ispat etmesi beklenemez. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrar b\u00f6l\u00fcnemeyece\u011finden paran\u0131n \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 olarak verildi\u011fi iddias\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ispat\u0131 gerekmektedir (L. \u015eanal, G\u00f6rg\u00fcn \/ Levent, B\u00f6r\u00fc \/ Mehmet, Kodako\u011flu: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Ankara 2023, s. 436).<\/p>\n
29. Bile\u015fik (m\u00fcrekkep) ikrarda ise, bir taraf\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc vak\u0131a kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u00e7a b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle kabul edilmekle; ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla, vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011fru oldu\u011fu ve bildirilen vas\u0131fta bulundu\u011fu kabul edilmekle birlikte, ikrara \u00f6yle bir vak\u0131a eklenir ki, eklenen bu vak\u0131a, ya ikrar edilen vak\u0131an\u0131n hukuksal sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fmas\u0131n\u0131 engeller ya da onu h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz k\u0131lar. Bile\u015fik ikrar, ikrara konu olan vak\u0131a ile, ona eklenen vak\u0131a aras\u0131nda bir ba\u011flant\u0131 bulunup bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re, ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bile\u015fik ikrar ve ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z bile\u015fik ikrar olarak ikiye ayr\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
30. Ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bile\u015fik ikrarda ikrar edenin ikrar\u0131na ekledi\u011fi vak\u0131a ile ikrar edilen vak\u0131a aras\u0131nda do\u011fal bir ba\u011flant\u0131 vard\u0131r; ikrara eklenen vak\u0131a ikrar olanan vak\u0131an\u0131n do\u011fal bir sonucudur. “Daval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131dan 1.000TL’yi \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 olarak ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fakat bu paray\u0131 kendisine \u00f6dedi\u011fini bildirmesi \u00f6rne\u011finde oldu\u011fu gibi”. Ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z bile\u015fik ikrarda ise, ikrar edenin ikrar\u0131na ekledi\u011fi vak\u0131a ile ikrar edilen vak\u0131a aras\u0131nda hi\u00e7bir ba\u011flant\u0131 yoktur, ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla ikinci vak\u0131a, ikrar edilen vak\u0131a olmadan da mevcuttur. \u00d6rne\u011fin daval\u0131n\u0131n “dava konusu 1.000TL’yi davac\u0131dan \u00f6d\u00fcn\u00e7 olarak ald\u0131m, fakat ben de davac\u0131dan 1.000TL alacakl\u0131y\u0131m, bu alaca\u011f\u0131m ile borcumu takas ediyorum” \u015feklindeki beyan\u0131 ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z bile\u015fik ikrard\u0131r (Kuru: s. 2056 vd).<\/p>\n
31. Ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 bile\u015fik ikrar, vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrara benzemektedir. Bile\u015fik ikrar, ikrar edenin ikrar\u0131na, ba\u015fka bir vak\u0131a eklenmesi suretiyle yap\u0131l\u0131r. Oysa vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda ikrara eklenen, ikrar edilen olay\u0131n vasf\u0131na y\u00f6neliktir. Vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda vak\u0131a tektir, onun vasf\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131d\u0131r, bile\u015fik ikrarda ise ikrar edilen vak\u0131ayla ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 ya da ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z yeni bir vak\u0131a eklemesi yap\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrara eklenen vak\u0131a, as\u0131l vak\u0131a ile ayn\u0131 andaki veya ondan \u00f6nceki bir vak\u0131a oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde, bile\u015fik ikrara eklenen vak\u0131a as\u0131l vak\u0131adan sonraki tarihte do\u011fmu\u015f olan bir vak\u0131ad\u0131r (Kuru: s. 2061; Hakan, Pekcan\u0131tez \/ Muhammet, \u00d6zekes \/ Mine, Akkan \/ H\u00fclya, Ta\u015f Korkmaz: Medeni Usul Hukuku, Cilt II, \u0130stanbul 2017, s. 1639).<\/p>\n
32. Yukar\u0131da yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; ilk derece mahkemesince davac\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali ve tescile y\u00f6nelik talebinin sabit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan reddine, davac\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011fa y\u00f6nelik talebinin ise k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, 700.000,00 TL alaca\u011f\u0131n dava tarihinden itibaren yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131lardan yar\u0131 oran\u0131nda al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine, fazlaya ili\u015fkin talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015f; an\u0131lan karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n temyizinin bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle tapu iptali ve tescil talebi uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Terditli talep y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 800.000,00 TL’nin banka havalesi ile 90.000,00 TL’nin ise elden daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fi, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n, davac\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6nderdi\u011fi paralarla al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131 usul\u00fcne uygun yaz\u0131l\u0131 belge ile (\u00a710-11) kan\u0131tlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi daval\u0131lar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bedellerinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik beyanlar\u0131 vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrar mahiyetinde (\u00a7 28) olup, bu ikrar b\u00f6l\u00fcnemez. Buna g\u00f6re, vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda kan\u0131tlama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ikrar eden tarafa (daval\u0131lara) de\u011fil, vak\u0131ay\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren tarafa (davac\u0131ya) aittir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemece davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iddia olunan vak\u0131alar ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
33. H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen ve yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilave gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131 bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IX. KARAR
\nA\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle;
\nDaval\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen ve yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilave gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 371 inci maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 373 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131 veren \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin de B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
09.10.2024 tarihinde yap\u0131lan ikinci g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmede oy birli\u011fiyle kesin olarak karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bDaval\u0131lar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama a\u015famas\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n bedellerinin davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan ba\u011f\u0131\u015f yoluyla daval\u0131lara verildi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik beyanlar\u0131 vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrar mahiyetinde olup, bu ikrar b\u00f6l\u00fcnemez. Buna g\u00f6re vas\u0131fl\u0131 ikrarda kan\u0131tlama y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, ikrar eden tarafa (daval\u0131lara) de\u011fil, vak\u0131ay\u0131 ileri s\u00fcren tarafa (davac\u0131ya) aittir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemece davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan iddia olunan vak\u0131alar ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2023\/953 E., 2024\/504 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi EK KARAR TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 24.02.2021 SAYISI : 2023\/72 E., 2023\/189 K. KARAR : Davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne \u00d6ZEL DA\u0130RE KARARI : Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesinin 19.12.2022 tarihli ve 2021\/7024 Esas, 2022\/7852 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 BOZMA karar\u0131 Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tapu iptali ve tescil, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde tazminat davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davac\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali ve tescile y\u00f6nelik talebinin reddine, tazminata y\u00f6nelik talebinin ise k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince taraf vekillerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 daval\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir. Direnme karar\u0131 daval\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan g\u00fcndem ve dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: I. DAVA Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin tek malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan \u0130stanbul ili \u015ei\u015fli il\u00e7esi Me\u015frutiyet Mahallesi 958 ada 5 parsel 5 No.lu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc satarak daha k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck birden fazla ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinmeyi ve bu …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,535],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22376","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber","category-uncategorized-tr"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n