T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay\u00a0<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2018\/889 E., 2018\/1939 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “tapu iptali ve tescil” davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda Ayval\u0131k Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince davan\u0131n reddine dair verilen 29.04.2010 tarihli ve 2009\/182 E., 2010\/236 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyizi \u00fczerine, Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesinin 30.10.2010 tarihli ve 2010\/7711 E., 2010\/12574 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile:<\/p>\n
“… Dava, hata ve hile hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden, toplanan delillerden; davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu 84 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 27.04.2006 tarihli akitle ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle daval\u0131ya temlik etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, daval\u0131 …\u2019nun bak\u0131c\u0131 olarak yan\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu, maliki oldu\u011fu 1160 ada 74 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tasarrufu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lacakken hata ve hileye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmek suretiyle, tapuya g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve dava konusu 1160 ada 84 parselin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle temlikinin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin konusu, niteli\u011fi ve \u00f6denecek miktar gibi hususlarda dikkatsizli\u011fi veya bilgisizli\u011fi sonucu ger\u00e7ek iradesine uymayan beyanda bulunmak suretiyle esasl\u0131 hataya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 ku\u015fkusuzdur. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda esasl\u0131 hatan\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, 24. maddede s\u0131n\u0131rlay\u0131c\u0131 olmamak \u00fczere \u00f6rnekler g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir. K\u0131saca i\u00e7 irade ile a\u00e7\u0131klanan irade aras\u0131ndaki bilmeyerek yap\u0131lan uyumsuzluk olarak tan\u0131mlanan hatan\u0131n esasl\u0131 kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in, uygulamada ve bilimsel alanda ortakla\u015fa benimsendi\u011fi gibi, giri\u015filen taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn ba\u015fl\u0131ca sebebini te\u015fkil etmesi, daha a\u00e7\u0131k s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle hem yan\u0131lg\u0131ya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf y\u00f6n\u00fcnden (Subjektif unsur), hem de i\u015f hayat\u0131ndaki d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131 (objektif unsur) a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, hataya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fclmese idi b\u00f6yle bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin hi\u00e7 veya a\u00e7\u0131klanan bi\u00e7imde yap\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n isbatlanmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
Bu ko\u015fullar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 halinde hataya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf, isterse iptal hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmak suretiyle hukuki ili\u015fkiyi ge\u00e7mi\u015fe etkili (makable \u015famil) olarak ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131labilir ve verdi\u011fi \u015feyi geri isteyebilir. Yeter ki hatan\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmesi B.K. nun 25. ve M.K. nun 2. maddesinde h\u00fckme ba\u011flanan d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131n. Hemen belirtmek gerekirki, s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131l\u0131rken hataya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf\u0131n kusurlu bulunmas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin iptaline engel de\u011fildir. Ne var ki, …nun 26. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi hatay\u0131 bilmeyen veya bilecek durumda bulunmayan ve kusursuz olan kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n menfi, gerekti\u011finde m\u00fcsbet zarar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, iptal hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hi\u00e7bir \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Hatan\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131na y\u00f6neltilecek tek tarafl\u0131 bir irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 ile bildirilebilece\u011fi gibi def’i veya dava yoluyla da kullan\u0131labilir. Ayr\u0131ca hatan\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille isbat edilebilir.
\nDi\u011fer taraftan; hile, genel olarak bir kimseyi irade beyan\u0131nda bulunmaya ,\u00f6zellikle s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapmaya sevketmek i\u00e7in onda kasten hatal\u0131 bir kan\u0131 uyand\u0131rmak veya esasen var olan hatal\u0131 bir kan\u0131y\u0131 koruma yahut devam\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlan\u0131r. Hata da yan\u0131lma hilede yan\u0131ltma s\u00f6z konusudur. B.K’nun 28\/l maddesinde a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere taraflardan biri di\u011fer taraf\u0131n kas\u0131tl\u0131 aldatmas\u0131yla s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapmaya y\u00f6neltilmi\u015fse hata esasl\u0131 olmasa bile aldat\u0131lan taraf i\u00e7in s\u00f6zle\u015fme ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 say\u0131lamaz. De\u011finilen ko\u015fullar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 halinde aldat\u0131lan taraf hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmak suretiyle hukuki ili\u015fkiyi ge\u00e7mi\u015fe etkili (makable \u015eamil) olarak ortadan kald\u0131rabilir ve verdi\u011fi \u015feyi geri isteyebilir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, hile her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille isbat edilebilece\u011fi gibi iptal hakk\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hi\u00e7 bir \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Hilenin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde kar\u015f\u0131 tarafa y\u00f6neltilecek bir irade a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131, defi yahut dava yoluyla da kullan\u0131labilir.<\/p>\n
Somut olaya gelince; mahkemece, Bor\u00e7lar Yasas\u0131n\u0131n 31. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen 1 y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin her iki hukuksal sebep bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da akdin yap\u0131l\u0131\u015f tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, dava tarihine g\u00f6re hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7mi\u015f oldu\u011fu, \u00f6te yandan, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n temlikine esas al\u0131nan akdin resmi belge oldu\u011fu ve resmi belgenin aksinin ayn\u0131 derecede yine bir belge ile kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 gerekece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Oysa, yukar\u0131da de\u011finilen ilkeler g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde, hata ve hile hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 iddialar bak\u0131m\u0131ndan, Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 31. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihinin akdin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarih olmay\u0131p hata ve hileye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmeye \u0131tt\u0131la kesbedildi\u011fi tarih oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca, hata ve hile olgusunun T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun 7. maddesi gere\u011fince her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispatlanabilece\u011fi, yukar\u0131da de\u011finilen ilkelerde de kabul edildi\u011fi \u00fczere sabittir.<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re, mahkeme h\u00fckm\u00fcne esas al\u0131nan gerek\u00e7enin yasal ve do\u011fru oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca; toplanan ve toplanacak delillerin yukar\u0131da de\u011finilen ilkeler de g\u00f6zetilmek suretiyle de\u011ferlendirilerek sonucuna g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekirken yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u00fczere h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsizdir…”
\ngerek\u00e7esiyle bozularak dosya yerine geri \u00e7evrilmekle yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, mahkemece \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
HUKUK GENEL KURULU KARARI<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulunca incelenerek direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcresinde temyiz edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131ktan ve dosyadaki belgeler okunduktan sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Dava, hata ve hile hukuksal nedenlerine dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali ve tescil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili, olduk\u00e7a ileri ya\u015fta olan davac\u0131ya bakabilecek bir yak\u0131n\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan uzun y\u0131llar yaln\u0131z ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131 ile tan\u0131\u015ft\u0131ktan sonra ise g\u00fcnl\u00fck i\u015flerini yevmiye ile ona yapt\u0131rmaya ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131ya ve ailesine maddi yard\u0131mlarda bulundu\u011funu, vefat eden e\u015finden dolay\u0131 ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131 onlar i\u00e7in harcad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n 2008 y\u0131l\u0131 Kurban Bayram\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7irmek i\u00e7in bir akrabas\u0131na gitti\u011fini, d\u00f6nd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde ise daval\u0131ya ula\u015famad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, etraftan daval\u0131n\u0131n arazi sahibi oldu\u011funu duymas\u0131 \u00fczerine akrabalar\u0131 vas\u0131tas\u0131yla durumu ara\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve kendisine ait 84 parselin 2006 y\u0131l\u0131nda daval\u0131ya ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle devredildi\u011fini \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fini, oysa ki daval\u0131ya di\u011fer bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 olan 74 parseli kiralamak i\u00e7in tapuya gitti\u011fini, ya\u015fl\u0131 olup zaman zaman da antidepresan ila\u00e7lar kullanan davac\u0131n\u0131n hile ve desise ile hataya d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclerek hemen biti\u015fi\u011finde bulunan 84 parselin ba\u011f\u0131\u015flama i\u015fleminin ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fini, \u00fczerinde ba\u011f evi de bulunan ve \u00e7ok de\u011ferli olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n hileyle m\u00fcvekkilinin elinden al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, durumun Ayval\u0131k Belediyesi Emlak M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 06.03.2009 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131 ile ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin de hata ve hileyi \u00f6\u011frenme tarihinden itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, tapu iptali ve tescil isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili, davan\u0131n hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcreden sonra a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n resm\u00ee senedin i\u00e7eri\u011fini okudu\u011funu ve hibe yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 imzas\u0131 ile teyit etti\u011fini, hile iddias\u0131n\u0131n resm\u00ee senedin i\u00e7eri\u011fine g\u00f6re isabetsiz oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilinin 74 parseli kiralamas\u0131 i\u00e7in de tapuya gidilmesine ve belge d\u00fczenlenmesine gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin y\u0131llarca davac\u0131ya bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve onun her t\u00fcrl\u00fc ihtiyac\u0131 ile ilgilendi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n da bunun kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak dava konusu yeri m\u00fcvekkiline hibe etti\u011fini savunarak, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, davac\u0131n\u0131n uzun y\u0131llar daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, kimi tan\u0131klar\u0131n beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re bak\u0131m i\u015finin \u00fccret kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131, kimine g\u00f6re de \u00fccretsiz yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n da duydu\u011fu minnetin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 daval\u0131ya ba\u011f\u0131\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n d\u00f6rt par\u00e7a ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde sadece birini devretti\u011fi, tapuya davac\u0131ya ait ba\u015fka bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n kiralanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gidildi\u011fi iddia edilmi\u015f ise de; kira kontrat\u0131 i\u00e7in tapuya gitmeye gerek olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, hatta yaz\u0131l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n dahi gerekmedi\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n devri s\u0131ras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen sat\u0131\u015f senedinin de resm\u00ee bir senet olup aksinin ayn\u0131 nitelikteki bir delille ispat\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, ancak buna ili\u015fkin bir delilin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi o tarihte tapu memuru olan tan\u0131k \u0130smail Hakk\u0131’n\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n hangi parseli daval\u0131ya ba\u011f\u0131\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n fark\u0131nda oldu\u011funu beyan etmesi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda davan\u0131n kan\u0131tlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca BK’n\u0131n 31. maddesine g\u00f6re davan\u0131n akdin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren bir y\u0131l i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde a\u00e7\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin doldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekilinin temyizi \u00fczerine karar, \u00d6zel Dairece yukar\u0131da karar ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131ks\u0131z bir kazand\u0131rma oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle daval\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bak\u0131mla e\u015f de\u011ferde olmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekmedi\u011fi, davac\u0131 hata ve hileye dayanm\u0131\u015f ise de 2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131ya ge\u00e7ti\u011fi kendisine s\u00f6ylenmesine ra\u011fmen bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde dava a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131ya bakmayan akrabas\u0131n\u0131n bir anda ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131p daval\u0131 ile g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmesine engel olduktan sonra dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu durumun hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu, ayr\u0131ca resm\u00ee senedin taraflar huzurunda okundu\u011fu gibi taraflarca da al\u0131n\u0131p okunabilece\u011fi, b\u00f6yle olunca davac\u0131n\u0131n hata ve hileyi sonradan \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi beyan\u0131n\u0131n inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bozma gerek\u00e7eleri kabul edildi\u011fi takdirde ba\u011f\u0131\u015fta bulunan ki\u015filerin hi\u00e7 bir somut delile dayanmadan \u00f6nce ba\u011f\u0131\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir mal\u0131 sonra hata yapt\u0131m, hile var diye geri alabilece\u011fi, bu durumun da hukuka olan g\u00fcveni zedeleyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmi\u015f, direnme karar\u0131 taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulunca, gerek\u00e7eli direnme karar\u0131nda usul\u00fcne uygun bir h\u00fck\u00fcm f\u0131kras\u0131 olu\u015fturulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle di\u011fer temyiz itirazlar\u0131 incelenmeksizin karar usulden bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece Hukuk Genel Kurulunun bozma ilam\u0131na uyulmu\u015f ise de usul\u00fcne uygun direnme h\u00fckm\u00fc kurulmas\u0131 yerine davan\u0131n esas\u0131 incelenerek bu defa daval\u0131 …’nun davac\u0131ya bakt\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n da e\u015finden dolay\u0131 ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131 ve k\u0131z\u0131 i\u00e7in harcad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu \u015fartlar alt\u0131nda dava konusu yeri ba\u011f\u0131\u015flamas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir hi\u00e7bir makul nedenin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, tam tersine davac\u0131n\u0131n tapuya kira i\u00e7in gitti\u011fini iddia etti\u011fi ve bu iddias\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla kan\u0131tlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar daval\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015f, \u00d6zel Dairece; mahkemenin direnme karar\u0131 ile davadan elini \u00e7ekti\u011fi, direnme karar\u0131ndan d\u00f6n\u00fclerek uyma karar\u0131 verilmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Hukuk Genel Kurulu karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 mahkemece yap\u0131lacak i\u015fin, kararda a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fekilde usul\u00fcne uygun bir direnme karar\u0131 yazmaktan ibaret oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece bozma karar\u0131na uyularak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de verilen bu karar da \u00d6zel Dairece; gerek\u00e7e ile h\u00fck\u00fcm aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki bulundu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Yerel Mahkemece, son bozma karar\u0131na uyularak ilk h\u00fck\u00fcmdeki gerek\u00e7elerle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f, direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.
\nDirenme yoluyla Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; hata ve hile hukuksal sebebine dayal\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131nda, yasada \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen bir y\u0131ll\u0131k s\u00fcrenin resm\u00ee akdin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren mi yoksa hata ve hilenin \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren mi ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca resm\u00ee akdin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda somut olayda ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen hata ve hile olgusunun her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre bak\u0131m\u0131ndan mahkemece yap\u0131lan inceleme ve de\u011ferlendirmenin yerinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc i\u00e7in konu ile ilgili yasal d\u00fczenleme ve kavramlar\u0131n k\u0131saca a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131nda yarar vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fme; hukuki bir sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmak \u00fczere, iki veya daha ziyade ki\u015finin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ve birbirine uygun irade beyanlar\u0131 ile uyu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder (Kocayusufpa\u015fao\u011flu, N.: Bor\u00e7lar Hukukuna Giri\u015f, 7. b., \u0130stanbul 2017, s. 95).<\/p>\n
M\u00fclga 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda oldu\u011fu gibi 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda da (TBK) s\u00f6zle\u015fme; bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin kaynaklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda say\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin taraflar\u0131n iradelerini kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ve birbirine uygun olarak a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131yla kurulaca\u011f\u0131 (TBK. m.1) h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130rade beyan\u0131, irade ve beyan unsurlar\u0131ndan olu\u015fur. Bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131l\u0131rken taraflardan birinin i\u015flem iradesinin olu\u015fum veya beyan\u0131 a\u015famas\u0131nda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan sakatl\u0131klara irade bozuklu\u011fu denir (Eren, F.: Bor\u00e7lar Hukuku Genel H\u00fck\u00fcmler, 22. b.,Ankara 2017, s. 392).<\/p>\n
Belirtmek gerekir ki; bir hukuki i\u015flemin ge\u00e7erli ve amac\u0131na uygun hukuki sonu\u00e7lar do\u011furabilmesi i\u00e7in o hukuki i\u015flemi yapan ki\u015fi veya ki\u015filerin sa\u011fl\u0131kl\u0131 bir \u015fekilde olu\u015fmu\u015f iradelerinin bulunmas\u0131 ve yine bu iradelerinin istenilen hukuki sonuca uygun \u015fekilde a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. \u0130rade bozuklu\u011fu kavram\u0131n\u0131n iki farkl\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fc bulunmakta olup, bunlardan ilki iradenin hen\u00fcz olu\u015fum evresindeki sakatl\u0131k, di\u011feri ise iradenin a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa vurulmas\u0131 (beyan\u0131-bildirimi) evresinde meydana gelen sakatl\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130rade bozuklu\u011fu h\u00e2lleri m\u00fclga 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK’nda “R\u0131zadaki fesat” ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda “Hata”, “Hile” ve “\u0130krah” olarak 23 ila 31. maddeler aras\u0131nda h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f iken, 01.07.2012 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK’n\u0131n 30 ila 39. maddeleri aras\u0131nda bu defa “Yan\u0131lma”, “Aldatma” ve “Korkutma” ba\u015fl\u0131klar\u0131 alt\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.
\nG\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fi \u00fczere T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Hukuku sisteminde iradeyi bozan sebepler \u00fc\u00e7 durum olarak h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olup, yan\u0131lma (hata), aldatma (hile) ve korkutma (ikrah) ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme bi\u00e7imleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan birbirinden farkl\u0131d\u0131rlar.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere yan\u0131lma (hata); irade ile beyan aras\u0131nda istemeyerek meydana gelen bir uyumsuzluk halidir. Aldatma (hile) ise genel olarak bir kimseyi irade beyan\u0131nda bulunmaya, \u00f6zellikle s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapmaya sevk etmek i\u00e7in onda kasten hatal\u0131 bir kan\u0131 uyand\u0131rmak veya esasen var olan hatal\u0131 bir kan\u0131y\u0131 korumak yahut devam\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamak \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlan\u0131r. Hatada yan\u0131lma, hilede ise kas\u0131tl\u0131 olarak yan\u0131ltma s\u00f6z konusudur.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk hukukunda irade bozuklu\u011funa ba\u011flanan yapt\u0131r\u0131m ise bir kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck ( butlan) h\u00e2li de\u011fildir. M\u00fclga BK’n\u0131n 23 ve devam\u0131 maddelerinde “…ilzam olunamaz.” (BK.23), “…o akit ile ilzam olunmaz.” (BK.28), “…kendi hakk\u0131nda l\u00fczum ifade etmez” (BK.29\/I), TBK’nda ise “… ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaz.” (TBK. m.30), “…s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir.” (TBK. m.36 ve 37\/1) ibareleri kullan\u0131lmak suretiyle irade bozuklu\u011fuyla yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin, iradesi hata, hile veya ikrahla sakatlanan kimseyi ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclerek, bu ki\u015fiye belli bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde kullanabilece\u011fi iptal hakk\u0131 tan\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Kanun, esasl\u0131 olmayan hatalar\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin iptaline yol a\u00e7mas\u0131n\u0131 ise kabul etmemi\u015ftir. S\u00f6zle\u015fme kurulurken esasl\u0131 yan\u0131lmaya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf, s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmaz ( TBK. m.30, BK. m.23). Ancak taraflardan biri, di\u011ferinin aldatmas\u0131 sonucu s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapm\u0131\u015fsa, yan\u0131lma esasl\u0131 olmasa bile, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir (TBK. m. 36\/1, BK. m. 28\/1).<\/p>\n
Az yukar\u0131da de\u011finildi\u011fi gibi iradesi sakatlanan taraf\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi iptal hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanmas\u0131, di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesi TBK’n\u0131n 39. maddesinde (818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK’n\u0131n 31. maddesinde) belli bir s\u00fcreye ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yan\u0131lma veya aldatma sebebiyle ya da korkutulma sonucunda s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapan taraf, yan\u0131lma veya aldatmay\u0131 \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi ya da korkutman\u0131n etkisinin ortadan kalkt\u0131\u011f\u0131 andan ba\u015flayarak bir y\u0131l i\u00e7inde s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmez veya verdi\u011fi \u015feyi geri istemezse, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi onam\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r (TBK. m. 39\/1).<\/p>\n
Buradaki s\u00fcre Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 01.06.2011 tarihli ve 2011\/14-281 E., 2011\/373 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre niteli\u011finde olup, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin de Kanunun a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca hata ve hilenin\/yan\u0131lma ve aldatman\u0131n \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi tarihten itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 ku\u015fkusuzdur. \u0130radesi sakatlanan taraf\u0131n hata veya hileyi \u00f6\u011frendi\u011fi andan itibaren bir y\u0131ll\u0131k hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u011fl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bildirmesi veya verdi\u011fi \u015feyi geri istemesi zorunludur.
\n\u00d6te yandan 01.01.2002 tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe giren 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun “Resm\u00ee belgelerle ispat” kenar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 7. maddesi ” Resmi sicil ve senetler, belgeledikleri olgular\u0131n do\u011frulu\u011funa kan\u0131t olu\u015fturur. Bunlar\u0131n i\u00e7eri\u011finin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ispat\u0131, kanunlarda ba\u015fka bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, herhangi bir \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir.” h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermekte oldu\u011fundan, s\u00f6zle\u015fme resm\u00ee senetle yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olsa dahi hata ve hile olgusu her t\u00fcrl\u00fc delille ispatlanabilir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda da yan\u0131lma (hata) ve aldatma (hile) hukuksal nedenlerine dayal\u0131 olarak 27.04.2006 tarihinde ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle yap\u0131lan temlikin iptali istenilmi\u015f olup, eldeki dava 03.09.2009 tarihinde a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve dayan\u0131lan irade bozuklu\u011fu h\u00e2llerinin 06.03.2009 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frenildi\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece davac\u0131n\u0131n bu iddias\u0131 ile dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerin yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan yasal d\u00fczenleme ve ilkeler \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde de\u011ferlendirilerek olu\u015facak sonuca g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihten itibaren ba\u015flayaca\u011f\u0131 ve resm\u00ee senedin aksinin de yine ayn\u0131 derecede bir belge ile kan\u0131tlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki gerek\u00e7eyle karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 isabetli de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
O h\u00e2lde, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmak gerekirken \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.
\nBu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Davac\u0131lar vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda g\u00f6sterilen nedenlerden dolay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanununun Ge\u00e7ici 3. Maddesine g\u00f6re uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanununun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA, istek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine, ayn\u0131 Kanunun 440. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 13.12.2018 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 13.12.2018 tarihli, 2018\/889 E., 2018\/1939 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 Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2018\/889 E., 2018\/1939 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki “tapu iptali ve tescil” davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda Ayval\u0131k Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince davan\u0131n reddine dair verilen 29.04.2010 tarihli ve 2009\/182 E., 2010\/236 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyizi \u00fczerine, Yarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesinin 30.10.2010 tarihli ve 2010\/7711 E., 2010\/12574 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile: “… Dava, hata ve hile hukuksal nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Mahkemece, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011finden, toplanan delillerden; davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eki\u015fme konusu 84 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 27.04.2006 tarihli akitle ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle daval\u0131ya temlik etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Davac\u0131, daval\u0131 …\u2019nun bak\u0131c\u0131 olarak yan\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu, maliki oldu\u011fu 1160 ada 74 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tasarrufu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan kira s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lacakken hata ve hileye d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmek suretiyle, tapuya g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc ve dava konusu 1160 ada 84 parselin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f suretiyle temlikinin sa\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek, eldeki davay\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin konusu, niteli\u011fi ve \u00f6denecek miktar gibi hususlarda dikkatsizli\u011fi veya bilgisizli\u011fi sonucu ger\u00e7ek iradesine uymayan beyanda bulunmak suretiyle esasl\u0131 hataya d\u00fc\u015fen taraf\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 ku\u015fkusuzdur. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda esasl\u0131 hatan\u0131n tan\u0131m\u0131 yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f, 24. maddede s\u0131n\u0131rlay\u0131c\u0131 olmamak \u00fczere \u00f6rnekler g\u00f6sterilmi\u015ftir. K\u0131saca i\u00e7 irade ile a\u00e7\u0131klanan irade aras\u0131ndaki bilmeyerek yap\u0131lan uyumsuzluk …<\/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-76815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n