T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay\u00a0<\/p>\n
6. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2022\/3669 E., 2024\/363 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 10. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\nKarar\u0131n davac\u0131lar vekili ve daval\u0131lar …, … ve … vekillerince istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurunun reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar ve daval\u0131lar …, … ve … vekillerince 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 ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA
\nDavac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; dava konusu 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak arsa malikleri ile y\u00fcklenici daval\u0131 … aras\u0131nda … 9. Noterli\u011finin 10\/01\/1992 tarihli, 2554 yevmiyeli Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi Daire Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130n\u015faat S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, … Belediyesi \u0130mar M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce onayl\u0131 mimari projeye g\u00f6re ruhsat al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan in\u015faat ruhsat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 ve eksik imalatlar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerince …’a tapular\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in vekaletname ve para vermelerine ra\u011fmen, daval\u0131 ve o\u011flu … taraf\u0131ndan daire d\u00fckkanlar\u0131n tapular\u0131n\u0131n bug\u00fcne kadar verilmedi\u011fini, vekil s\u0131fat\u0131 ile kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve kat irtifak\u0131 kurulaca\u011f\u0131na, arsay\u0131 m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyet haline getirdi\u011fini, siteye ait genel otopark\u0131, s\u0131\u011f\u0131naklar\u0131 ve kap\u0131c\u0131 dairesini yapmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6zel otopark\u0131 da projeye ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak siteye ait ortak alana yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6zel otopark olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnen 86,89 m2 arsa hissesini de d\u00fcn\u00fcr\u00fc di\u011fer daval\u0131 …’na muvazaal\u0131 olarak devretti\u011fini, bu yerin daval\u0131lar … ve … taraf\u0131ndan 15 y\u0131ld\u0131r \u00f6zel otopark olarak i\u015fletildi\u011fini, ayn\u0131 yerde oto y\u0131kama i\u015fi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, y\u00fcklenicinin 20 y\u0131ld\u0131r edimini yerine getirmemesi nedeniyle m\u00fcvekkillerinin ma\u011fdur oldu\u011funu, … Belediyesinden mevcut hali ile … kullanma izni al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bildirildi\u011fini belirterek, daval\u0131lar … ve …’\u0131n mimari projeye ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u00f6zel otopark\u0131 kendileri i\u015flettikleri halde muvazaal\u0131 olarak bedelsiz devir ve temlik edilen daval\u0131 … taraf\u0131ndan sitenin ortak alan\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6zel otopark yap\u0131larak i\u015fletilmesi nedeniyle vaki m\u00fcdahalenin men’ine \u00f6zel otopark\u0131n kal’ine, …, …, …, 538 ada, 2 parselde daval\u0131 … ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 200\/2400 hissesinin KMK’n\u0131n k\u0131yasen uygulanarak mimari projede \u00f6zel otopark olarak \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme isabet edecek k\u0131s\u0131m hari\u00e7 fazladan verilen k\u0131sm\u0131n tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile davac\u0131lar ad\u0131na tapuya tesciline, fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile 100.000,00 TL ecrimisil tazminat\u0131n\u0131n dava tarihinden i\u015fleyecek faiziyle daval\u0131lardan tahsilini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP
\nDaval\u0131lar vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; m\u00fcvekkilleri … ve … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden husumet itiraz\u0131nda bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkili …’\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmede y\u00fcklenici olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmede imzas\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daire ve d\u00fckkanlar\u0131n tapular\u0131n\u0131 verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, buna ra\u011fmen iyi niyetli olarak problem varsa \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in ilgili kurumlara m\u00fcracaat etti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkili …’\u0131n vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, baz\u0131 davac\u0131lar\u0131n hisselerinde haciz oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in i\u015flemlerin tamamlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6zel otopark\u0131n ortak alana yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fe ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, belediye taraf\u0131ndan … ruhsat\u0131 al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bildirilmedi\u011fini, aksine imar mevzuat\u0131na uygun, projesi … K\u00fclt\u00fcr Varl\u0131klar\u0131 Kurulu taraf\u0131ndan onayl\u0131, yeniden … ruhsat\u0131 i\u015flemlerinden sonra … kullan\u0131m belgesi al\u0131nabilece\u011finin bildirildi\u011fini, …’\u0131n ilk y\u00fcklenici oldu\u011funu, daire ve d\u00fckkan satmas\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal oldu\u011funu, ancak …’na bedelsiz sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n yersiz oldu\u011funu, \u00f6zel otopark\u0131n \u00e7ok uzun y\u0131llard\u0131r m\u00fcvekkili …’\u0131n uhdesinde oldu\u011funu, davac\u0131lar\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olduklar\u0131ndan eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, ortak alana m\u00fcdahalenin s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tapu iptali ve tescil davalar\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131 ve m\u00fcstakil olarak a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, usul y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n reddi gerekti\u011fini, ihtiyati tedbir karar\u0131n\u0131n a\u011f\u0131r ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek, davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca tanzim olunan mimari projeye g\u00f6re 2. ve 3. katlara yap\u0131lacak siteye ait genel otopark haricinde 1. … kata y\u00fckleniciye ait \u00f6zel otopark yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ancak y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan 1. … kat\u0131n yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, 2. ve 3. … katlara site sakinlerinin kullan\u0131m\u0131na tahsis edilen otopark ve s\u0131\u011f\u0131na\u011f\u0131n proje b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenicinin bu \u015fekilde kendi kusuru ile objektif imkans\u0131zl\u0131k meydana getirdi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinden bu yana ge\u00e7en zaman i\u00e7erisinde daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenicinin s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen edimleri yerine getirmedi\u011fi halde, yaln\u0131zca, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile kendisine b\u0131rak\u0131lan otopark\u0131 in\u015fa etti\u011fi, hissesini daval\u0131 …’ na iddiaya g\u00f6re bedelsiz olarak sat\u0131\u011f\u0131, kiraya vererek gelir elde etti\u011fi, daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen edimler yerine getirilmedi\u011fi halde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden yarar sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, o\u011flu … taraf\u0131ndan maliklerden kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve kat irtifak\u0131 kurulmak \u00fczere para ve vekaletname al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak vekillik g\u00f6revinin de gerekti\u011fi gibi yerine getirilmedi\u011fi, di\u011fer daval\u0131 …’ nun, daval\u0131 …’ \u0131n d\u00fcn\u00fcr\u00fc oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki husumeti bildi\u011fi, bilmesi muhtemel oldu\u011fu, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n muvazaal\u0131 oldu\u011fu, iyi niyetli say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 …’na y\u00fcklenici daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan muvazaal\u0131 ve bedelsiz olarak devredilen 200\/2400 hissenin, KMK’ya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak m\u00fc\u015fterek hisse d\u00fczenlenen ve fazladan verilen pay\u0131n tapusunun iptalini talep edilmi\u015f ise de kat m\u00fclkiyeti kurulmadan, m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyet halindeki hisseler y\u00f6n\u00fcnden m2 miktar\u0131n\u0131n iptali m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ayr\u0131ca Kat M\u00fclkiyeti Kanununun 6. maddesi ve Otopark Y\u00f6netmeli\u011finin 4\/j maddesi gere\u011fince, otoparklar\u0131n tapuya ancak eklenti olarak beyanlar hanesine kaydedilebilece\u011fi, bu eklentiler \u00fczerinde t\u00fcm maliklerin hak sahibi oldu\u011fu ve somut olayda otopark i\u00e7in tahsis edilmi\u015f kat irtifak tapusu bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu itibarla davac\u0131 vekilinin tapu iptali tescil talebinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak projeye g\u00f6re 1. … kat plan\u0131ndaki otoparktan daval\u0131lardan … ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 kirac\u0131n\u0131n tahliye edilerek bo\u015f olarak teslim edilmesi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n t\u00fcm maliklerinin kullan\u0131m\u0131na tahsis edilmesi suretiyle m\u00fcdahalenin \u00f6nlenmesine karar verilmesi gerekti\u011fi, eklenti olarak kabul edilecek olan otopark\u0131n haks\u0131z ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131m\u0131 dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava tarihinden geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck 5 y\u0131l i\u00e7in ecrimisil talep edilebilece\u011finden davac\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n tapu iptali tescil y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddi, m\u00fcdahalenin men’ i ve kal, ecrimisil talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekti\u011fi, daval\u0131lar\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olarak hareket ettikleri, kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve kat irtifak\u0131 kurulamam\u0131\u015f olmamas\u0131ndan daval\u0131lar\u0131n sorumlusu olduklar\u0131, davac\u0131lar\u0131n bu talebinin reddedilmesinin nedeninin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n mevcut durum itibariyle bu y\u00f6nde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131na el vermemesinden kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131, aksi halde daval\u0131 y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015fen edimler yerine getirilmedi\u011finden, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile elde etti\u011fi haklar\u0131n da, ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle daval\u0131 …’ na sat\u0131lan hissenin de hak sahiplerine iadesinin gerekece\u011fi, bu itibarla reddedilen talep y\u00f6n\u00fcnden daval\u0131lar lehine vekalet \u00fccreti takdirine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne 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 davac\u0131lar vekili ve daval\u0131lar …, …, … vekili istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. \u0130stinaf Sebepleri
\n1.Davac\u0131lar vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle;
\nDaval\u0131 … ve arsa malikleri ile Kat Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130n\u015faat S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile … ili, … il\u00e7esi, … Mah. 538 ada, 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 1.042,69 m\u00b2 miktarl\u0131 arsa \u00fczerinde … Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130mar M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc’ne ait 02.10.1997 tarih, 308\/16 say\u0131l\u0131 onayl\u0131 mimari projeye ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k nedeniyle in\u015fat ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n iptal edildi\u011fini, ta\u015f\u0131nmazda mevcut daire ve d\u00fckkanlar\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, daval\u0131 …’\u0131n ileride kendisi aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lacak davalar\u0131n hukuki sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 bertaraf etmek amac\u0131yla m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyet hissesini olmas\u0131 gerekenden fazla olarak 1.42,69 m\u00b2 x 200\/2400 = 86,89 m\u00b2 fazla hisse verdi\u011fini, daha sonra bu hisseyi muvazaal\u0131 olarak d\u00fcn\u00fcrleri olan di\u011fer daval\u0131 …’na tapuda devir ve temlik etti\u011fini, fazladan verilen ve … devir edilen hissenin iptali gerekti\u011fini, talep ettikleri ecr-i misil tazminat\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ok d\u00fc\u015f\u00fck taktir edildi\u011fini bildirerek, talep ettikleri tapu iptali tescil y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ve eksik hesaplanan ecr-i misil tazminat\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden karar\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak talepleri do\u011frultusunda yeniden h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2.Daval\u0131lar …, …, … vekili istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n haks\u0131z ve hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 taleplerini kabul etmediklerini, davan\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ecri misilin geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck be\u015f y\u0131l i\u00e7in istenebilece\u011fini, talep edilen 15 y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n usul y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bozulmas\u0131 ve kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, yasal \u015fartlar\u0131 olu\u015fmam\u0131\u015f vak\u0131alar hakk\u0131nda usul hatas\u0131 yap\u0131larak, i\u015fin esas\u0131ndan karar verildi\u011fini, … ve …’\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda hissesi bulunmad\u0131klar\u0131ndan husumet d\u00fc\u015fmedi\u011fini, yerel mahkemenin bu hususa ili\u015fkin gerek\u00e7e belirtmedi\u011fini, y\u00fcklenici … At\u0131lgan\u0131n imzalad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kat kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re 1. … kat\u0131n y\u00fckleniciye ait olaca\u011f\u0131 ve projesine g\u00f6re 1. … kata yap\u0131lan otopark\u0131n da y\u00fckleniciye ait oldu\u011fu, otopark\u0131n Y\u00fcklenici taraf\u0131ndan … sat\u0131\u015f ve devirin usul\u00fcne uygun oldu\u011fu, …’nun iyiniyetli oldu\u011funu, 2 ve 3 kata yap\u0131lacak otoparka … Belediyesinin izin vermedi\u011finden yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, projesine uygun yap\u0131lan ticari-\u00f6zel otopark\u0131n ortak alan veya eklenti say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131, dava t\u00fcm maliklerin hukukunu etkileyece\u011finden tapu kayd\u0131ndaki dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 hisse sahiplerinin davaya dahil edilmesi gerekti\u011fini, davac\u0131lar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetle bu davay\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, zira gelen tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131, mimari proje incelendi\u011finde, davac\u0131lar\u0131n hi\u00e7birisinin hisselerine tekab\u00fcl eden dairelerde oturmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, arsa paylar\u0131ndan daha fazla alana sahip dairelerde oturduklar\u0131n\u0131 TMK 2 de ifade edilen d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 hareket ettiklerini, istinaf taleplerinin kabul\u00fcne, yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131larak, talepleri do\u011frultusunda davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131 ile … Belediyesinin yaz\u0131s\u0131 ile proje d\u0131\u015f\u0131 garaj ve otopark yap\u0131m\u0131 nedeniyle ta\u015f\u0131nmaza … kullanma izni verilemedi\u011fi, bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re y\u00fckleniciye b\u0131rak\u0131lan 1. … kat otopark\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, site sakinlerine b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken 2. ve 3. … kat 85.50 kotunda yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken otopark\u0131n yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, binada fiilen oturuma ba\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve kat irtifak\u0131 kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, binadan daire alanlara ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm tapusu yerine arsa pay\u0131 verildi\u011fi, tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re kap\u0131c\u0131 ve s\u0131\u011f\u0131nak gibi b\u00f6l\u00fcmlerin proje d\u0131\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lara d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclerek ticari kazan\u00e7 sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, … kullanma izninin al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hatta ruhsat s\u00fcresinin dolmas\u0131 ile bilinen anlam\u0131 ile in\u015faat\u0131n ka\u00e7ak durumuna d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na g\u00f6re Kat M\u00fclkiyetine tabi yap\u0131larda otopark\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm numaras\u0131 almad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ancak ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme eklenti olarak tapunun beyanlar hanesinde g\u00f6sterilebilece\u011fi ve y\u00f6netim plan\u0131nda kullan\u0131m \u015feklinin g\u00f6sterilmesi gerekti\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmazda kat irtifak\u0131 kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve mevcut eklenti haliyle t\u00fcm m\u00fc\u015fterek maliklerin hak sahibi olduklar\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, s\u00f6zle\u015fme borcunun yerine getirmeyen projeye uygun in\u015faat yapmayan ve iskan raporunu almayan y\u00fcklenicinin kusurlu ve temerr\u00fcte d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn kabul edildi\u011fi, taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan arsa pay\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin halen ayakta oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ayakta oldu\u011fu m\u00fcddet\u00e7e y\u00fcklenicinin ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 imar ve projesine uygun hale getirme imkan\u0131 bulundu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fme fesih edilmedik\u00e7e tapu pay\u0131n\u0131n iptali istenemeyece\u011fi ve y\u00fckleniciye avans olarak verilen tapu pay\u0131n\u0131n iptalinin bu a\u015famada de\u011ferlendirilmeyece\u011fi, yine \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7esindeki gibi daval\u0131 …’na ait tapu pay\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme \u00f6zg\u00fclenmesi ihtimali bulundu\u011fu, ancak mevcut durum itibariyle projelendirilmeyen ve eklenti olarak \u00f6zg\u00fclendirilmeyen otoparkta t\u00fcm tapu maliklerinin kullan\u0131m hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011fundan otoparka m\u00fcdahalenin meni ve ecrimisil talebinin kabul\u00fc gerekti\u011fi, bilirki\u015filerin ecrimisil miktar\u0131na ili\u015fkin teknik de\u011ferlendirmelerinin yeterli oldu\u011fu, istinaf eden daval\u0131lar\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme taraf\u0131, i\u015flem takip\u00e7isi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz kullan\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131 olmakla davada taraf ve husumet ehliyetini ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131klar\u0131ndan usul ve esasa uygun bulunan ilk derece mahkemesinin karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 istinaf taleplerinin reddi gerekti\u011fi, istinaf edilmeyen ve kamu d\u00fczeninden g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyen sair hususlar de\u011ferlendirme d\u0131\u015f\u0131 b\u0131rak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131lar vekili ve bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131lar …, …, … vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\nDavac\u0131lar vekili ve bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131lar vekili temyiz ba\u015fvuru dilek\u00e7esinde istinaf dilek\u00e7esi i\u00e7eri\u011fini tekrar ederek h\u00fckm\u00fcn bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e
\n1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme
\nUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, tapu iptal ve tescil, m\u00fcdahalenin meni, kal ve ecrimisil tazminat\u0131 istemlerine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun 369, 370 ve 371. maddeleri, 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK 470-486 maddeleri,<\/p>\n
3. De\u011ferlendirme
\n1.B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemelerinin nihai kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 371 inci maddesinde yer alan sebeplerden birinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2.Temyizen incelenen karar, taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131na, dayand\u0131klar\u0131 belgelere, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131 ile hukuki ili\u015fkinin nitelendirilmesine, dava \u015fartlar\u0131na, yarg\u0131lama ve ispat kurallar\u0131 ile kararda belirtilen gerek\u00e7elere g\u00f6re usul ve kanuna uygun olup, davac\u0131lar vekili ve bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131lar vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen nedenler karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. KARAR
\nA\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 370 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
A\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 temyiz giderlerinin temyiz eden davac\u0131lar ile bir k\u0131s\u0131m daval\u0131lara y\u00fckletilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
24.01.2024 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 24.01.2024 tarihli, 2022\/3669 E., 2024\/363 K. 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\u00a0 6. Hukuk Dairesi 2022\/3669 E., 2024\/363 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 10. Hukuk Dairesi Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n davac\u0131lar vekili ve daval\u0131lar …, … ve … vekillerince istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurunun reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131lar ve daval\u0131lar …, … ve … vekillerince 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 ve Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: I. DAVA Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde \u00f6zetle; dava konusu 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaza ili\u015fkin olarak arsa malikleri ile y\u00fcklenici daval\u0131 … aras\u0131nda … 9. Noterli\u011finin 10\/01\/1992 tarihli, 2554 yevmiyeli Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi Daire Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130n\u015faat S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, … Belediyesi \u0130mar M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce onayl\u0131 mimari projeye g\u00f6re ruhsat al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan in\u015faat ruhsat\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 ve eksik imalatlar yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkillerince …’a tapular\u0131n \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in vekaletname ve para vermelerine ra\u011fmen, daval\u0131 ve o\u011flu … taraf\u0131ndan daire d\u00fckkanlar\u0131n tapular\u0131n\u0131n bug\u00fcne kadar verilmedi\u011fini, vekil s\u0131fat\u0131 ile kat m\u00fclkiyeti ve kat irtifak\u0131 kurulaca\u011f\u0131na, arsay\u0131 m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyet haline getirdi\u011fini, siteye ait genel otopark\u0131, s\u0131\u011f\u0131naklar\u0131 ve …<\/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-74517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n