1. Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi<\/p>\n
Miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 payla\u015fmay\u0131 (tasfiyeyi) ama\u00e7lar, bu nedenle ge\u00e7icidir. Payla\u015fma ise iki \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilir; iradi ya da yarg\u0131 yoluyla. \u0130radi olan payla\u015fma ise TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yani miras payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile yap\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131l\u0131r. Bu nedenle \u00e7ok tarafl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi ile hak sahipli\u011fini sona erdirmek ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bireysel hak sahipli\u011fini sa\u011flamak ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bu nedenle terekede hak sahibi olan yasal veya atanm\u0131\u015f t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar (veya temsilcileri) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
Miras\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131na kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre\u00e7te terekenin her bir miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131 oran\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flemdir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 taahh\u00fct alt\u0131na girerler. Tereke aktifleri zorunlu olarak paylara b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcr ve bu paylar\u0131n hangi miras\u00e7\u0131ya ait oldu\u011funa karar verilir. Tereke pasifleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise bir zorunluluk olmay\u0131p, istenirse ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ntem pasifler i\u00e7inde yap\u0131labilir. Bu yolla tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi hak sahipli\u011fi sonland\u0131r\u0131larak, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ferdi hak sahipli\u011fi tesis edilmi\u015f olur.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi iki \u015fekilde yap\u0131labilir. Aynen (elden) payla\u015fma veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yoluyla.<\/p>\n
Terekenin t\u00fcm\u00fc ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde yani tam payla\u015fma \u015feklinde olabilece\u011fi gibi, terekedeki baz\u0131 mallar\u0131n payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 veya baz\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bu yolla miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde de yani k\u0131smi payla\u015fma \u015feklinde de olabilir. \u00d6zellikle tereke bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n payla\u015fma kapsam\u0131nda olmas\u0131 zorunlu de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc tereke bor\u00e7lar\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131lsa dahi bu bor\u00e7lardan dolay\u0131 t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere kar\u015f\u0131 m\u00fcteselsil sorumluluklar\u0131 devam eder. Pay\u0131ndan fazla \u00f6deme yapan miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n TMK\u2019n\u0131n 682. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lara r\u00fccu hakk\u0131 da sakl\u0131d\u0131r. K\u0131smi payla\u015ft\u0131rma halinde miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 devam eder. Bu \u015fekildeki s\u00f6zle\u015fme miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine benzer.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u20264721 Say\u0131l\u0131 TMK’n\u0131n 676 maddeye g\u00f6re, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra b\u00fct\u00fcn miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n veya temsilcilerinin iradelerinin birle\u015fmesi as\u0131l oldu\u011fundan, her birinin kendi pay\u0131na d\u00fc\u015feni ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n paylar\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fenler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak vazge\u00e7tikleri a\u00e7\u0131k ve kesin \u015fekilde belirlenmedik\u00e7e taksimin sabit oldu\u011fu kabul edilemeyecektir. Bu nedenle TMK’n\u0131n 676. maddesinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekle ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f, 10.12.1952 tarihli ve 1950\/2 E., 1952\/4 K. say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda da taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 taksimin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in yeterli kabul edilmi\u015f, taksimde mutlak e\u015fitlik aranmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesi uyar\u0131nca terekeye tabi ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmak ko\u015fuluyla miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda taksimi ge\u00e7erli olup, taksimin ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda e\u015fit bir payla\u015f\u0131m gerekli de\u011fildir. Somut olayda yap\u0131lan payla\u015f\u0131mda hisselerin parasal de\u011ferine g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131k bir bedel fark\u0131 da bulunmamaktad\u0131r. E\u015f s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle edimler aras\u0131nda bir orans\u0131zl\u0131k bulundu\u011fu, varsa bu orans\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ciddi ve objektif olarak makul kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n beklenemeyece\u011fi bir durum yoktur. Takip konusu alacak miktar\u0131 ve payla\u015f\u0131m sonucu bor\u00e7luya d\u00fc\u015fen oran dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, daval\u0131 bor\u00e7lunun mal ka\u00e7\u0131rma kast\u0131yla hareket etti\u011fine dair somut deliller sunulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, aksine yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan t\u00fcm a\u015famalarda bor\u00e7lu daval\u0131n\u0131n bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6demek gayesiyle hareket etti\u011fi ve yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerin mal ka\u00e7\u0131rmak i\u00e7in de\u011fil, taksim gayesiyle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya konulmu\u015ftur. Bu durumda mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[1]<\/p>\n
\u201c…uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar hakk\u0131nda miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda ge\u00e7erli bir taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re davan\u0131n kabul edilip edilmeyece\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r…676. maddeden a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere Payla\u015fma S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmad\u0131k\u00e7a ge\u00e7erli kabul edilemeyecektir… Ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden bahsedebilmek i\u00e7in, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n t\u00fcm payda\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir belgenin d\u00fczenlenmesi gerekmektedir. 10.12.1952 g\u00fcn ve 1950\/2 E., 1952\/4 K. say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ne i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Bu \u015fekilde haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulunmas\u0131 durumunda payda\u015flar bu belgeye dayanarak tapu iptali ve tescil talebinde bulunabileceklerinden ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi\u00a0davas\u0131 a\u00e7malar\u0131nda hukuki yararlar\u0131 olmayacakt\u0131r. Eldeki davadaki taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin incelenmesinde; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile d\u00fczenlenmedi\u011fi ve tamam\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan imzalanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r… Bu durumda, yukar\u0131da bahsedilen ilkelere g\u00f6re, ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011finden mahkemece i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenip sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n fiilen taksim edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r…\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 676. maddesi (743 Say\u0131l\u0131 MK. madde 611\u2013612), miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n tereke \u00fczerinde yapacaklar\u0131 taksimin, keza miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n birbirleri ile miras paylar\u0131n\u0131n temliki konusundaki yapacaklar\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ayn\u0131 Yasa’n\u0131n 677. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 ko\u015fulunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Her iki halde de, yap\u0131lacak tasarruflar\u0131n murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesinin olanakl\u0131 bulundu\u011fu sabittir. \u00d6te yandan, T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 678. maddesi d\u00fczenlemesi ile de, murisin sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ileride (murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra) intikal edecek terekedeki hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak bir miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131larla veya \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir ki\u015fi ile yapaca\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n da s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yer almas\u0131 ve onun kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesinin zorunlu oldu\u011fu kural\u0131na yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131n vefat\u0131ndan sonra d\u00fczenlenen s\u00f6zle\u015fme “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” niteli\u011findedir. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile mirasb\u0131rakandan intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n, gelecekte y\u0131k\u0131l\u0131p yeniden yap\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde miras\u00e7\u0131lara kalacak yerler belirlenmi\u015ftir. Her ne kadar daha sonra bir k\u0131s\u0131m miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan miras paylar\u0131n\u0131 tapuda sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle daval\u0131 …’a temlik etmi\u015f iseler de bu sat\u0131\u015f ger\u00e7ek anlamda bir devir niteli\u011finde olmay\u0131p 01.09.1998 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin icras\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir i\u015flemdir\u2026\u201d[3]<\/p>\n
2. Ge\u00e7erlilik \u015eekli<\/p>\n
TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676\/3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131k\u00e7a ge\u00e7erli olmaz. Adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil ge\u00e7erlilik \u015feklidir. T\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan imzalan\u0131r ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 ba\u011flar. Terekede devri resmi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar yer alsa dahi payla\u015fma i\u00e7in adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil yeterlidir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan s\u00f6zle\u015fme yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f olsa dahi, yani \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme kural olarak ge\u00e7ersiz ise de, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan edimler taraflarca tam olarak ifa edilmi\u015f ise, \u015fekil eksikli\u011fi nedeniyle ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcrmek, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2 maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. Bu nedenle s\u00f6zle\u015fme yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmasa bile iddia edilen s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fi edimlerin ifa edilmi\u015f olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Dava, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n mevcut tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131lar ad\u0131na tescil istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
4721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 676. maddesi (M\u00dcLGA 743 Say\u0131l\u0131 TKM’n\u0131n 611.) uyar\u0131nca miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (terekeye) d\u00e2hil ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil yeterlidir. Miras payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 (taksim) ancak taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na d\u00e2hil, payla\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olan miras mallar i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusudur. Payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ya da di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n oluruyla bir veya birka\u00e7 miras\u00e7\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edilen durumlarda miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131 sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz.<\/p>\n
Hemen belirtilmelidir ki, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil, bir ispat ko\u015fulu de\u011fil, ge\u00e7erlilik ko\u015fuludur. TBK\u2019n\u0131n 11\/2. maddesine g\u00f6re kanunun emretti\u011fi \u015feklin dereceyi \u015fumul ve tesisi hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fkaca bir h\u00fck\u00fcm tayin olunmam\u0131\u015f ise, akit bu \u015fekle riayet olunmad\u0131k\u00e7a sahih olmaz. \u015eekle ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fceyyidesi az \u00f6nce a\u00e7\u0131klanan yasa maddesinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir \u015feklin kapsam ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fka bir h\u00fck\u00fcm konulmam\u0131\u015f ise, \u015fekle uyulmadan yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr. H\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011fe ba\u011flanan sonu\u00e7 29.9.1988 tarihli ve 2\/2 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde belirtildi\u011fi gibi; kanun, \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 bir ge\u00e7erlilik \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunmakta ve buna uyulmadan yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere ge\u00e7ersizlik m\u00fceyyidesini (hukuki sonucunu) ba\u011flamaktad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 emredici nitelikte oldu\u011fundan, h\u00e2kim \u015fekil noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 her safhada resen g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne almak zorundad\u0131r. 12.4.1944 tarihli ve 1943\/14 Esas, 1944\/13 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi gibi, ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde, kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekle uyulmamas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz k\u0131lar ve bu husus itiraz nedeni oldu\u011fundan h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan do\u011frudan do\u011fruya g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulur.<\/p>\n
Ancak \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme kural olarak ge\u00e7ersiz olmakla birlikte, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan edimler taraflarca tam olarak ifa edilmi\u015f ise, \u015fekil eksikli\u011fi nedeniyle ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcrmek, hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur\u2026<\/p>\n
\u015eimdi bu nokta da; “d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma” ve “hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131” ilkeleri \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
4721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun \u201cD\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 2. maddesinde; \u201cHerkes, haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirirken d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na uymak zorundad\u0131r. Bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeni korumaz.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re; d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck, herkesin uymas\u0131 gerekli olan genel ve objektif bir davran\u0131\u015f kural\u0131d\u0131r. Bu kural, ki\u015filerin taraf\u0131 olduklar\u0131 hukuki ili\u015fkilerde d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, ahlakl\u0131 ve di\u011fer ki\u015filerde yarat\u0131lan g\u00fcvenle tutarl\u0131 \u015fekilde davranmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder. Buna g\u00f6re belirli bir hukuki ili\u015fkide d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f; toplumdaki d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu ve orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 bir ki\u015finin, genel ahlak, do\u011fruluk ve kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven esaslar\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imidir. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun bu davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n belirlenmesinde, toplumda ge\u00e7erli olan genel ahlak kurallar\u0131, g\u00fcn\u00fcn adet ve uygulamalar\u0131, davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu hukuki ili\u015fkilerin i\u00e7erik ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nacakt\u0131r\u2026<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma \u201cbir hak sahibinin hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken veya bir bor\u00e7lunun borcunu yerine getirirken iyi ve do\u011fru hareket etmesi yani d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, makul, fiilinin neticesini bilen, orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 her insan\u0131n benzer hadiselerde takip edecek oldu\u011fu yolda hareket etmesi\u201d anlam\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bir hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle ba\u015fkas\u0131na bir zarar verilmesi hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc herkesin haklar\u0131n\u0131, toplumda ge\u00e7erli do\u011fruluk d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck ve i\u015f ili\u015fkilerinin gerektirdi\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun olarak kullanmas\u0131n\u0131 emreder. Hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’na g\u00f6re d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131 verir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca hak sahibinin ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131zrar kast\u0131yla hareket etmi\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya gerek yoktur. \u00d6nemli olan ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar vermek kast\u0131 de\u011fil, hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bir hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a adaletsizlik olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, ger\u00e7ek hakk\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 ve bireyin korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in t\u00fcm hukuki yollar\u0131n kapal\u0131 bulundu\u011fu zorunluluk hallerinde, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesi uygulama alan\u0131 bulur ve ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc bir imkan sa\u011flar; haks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczeltici, yasadaki kurallar\u0131 tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 fonksiyonunu yerine getirir (25.1.1984 tarihli ve 1983\/3 E., 1984\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 2. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131 kural\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131, h\u00e2kime \u00f6zel ve istina\u00ee hallerde (adalete uygun d\u00fc\u015fecek \u015fekilde) h\u00fck\u00fcm verme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131r\u2026<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re; dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar murisleri ve murisin ilk e\u015finden olma evlatlar\u0131… ile …’in miras taksimi sonucu kendilerine isabet eden ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 adlar\u0131na kaydettirdikleri iddia edildi\u011fine g\u00f6re ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu kabul edilen 09.09.1984 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi muristen, … ile… veya miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na intikal ya da murise ait herhangi bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tescil edilip edilmedi\u011fi yani daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen miras taksimine dair edimin ifas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda bir edinme olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda Mahkemece herhangi bir inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, iddia edildi\u011fi \u00fczere daval\u0131larca ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen miras taksimi dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n tespiti halinde art\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmenin hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131 mahiyetinde olaca\u011f\u0131 ve bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeni korumayaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fcsturuna g\u00f6re taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda, Mahkemece, dava dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere, ge\u00e7erlilik \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ersiz kabul edilen 09.09.1984 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi… ile… veya miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na murise ait herhangi bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n intikal veya tespit g\u00f6r\u00fcp g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi hususunda toplanan ve toplanacak deliller kapsam\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131larak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[4]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz daval\u0131 Veysel ad\u0131na 18.3.2007 tarihinde yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda tespit g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f, tutana\u011f\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine 01.05.2007 tarihinde daval\u0131 Veysel ad\u0131na tapuya tescil edilmi\u015ftir. Taraflar\u0131n murisi S. \u00d6. 11.02.1987 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015f olup, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi dinlenen daval\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re, 2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce vaki olmu\u015ftur. 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kadastro Kanununun 15\/1-3 maddesine g\u00f6re, tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n ayn\u0131 Kanunun 14. maddesi gere\u011fince belirlenen zilyetleri aras\u0131nda taksim edildikleri belgelerle veya bilirki\u015fi veyahut tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla sabit oldu\u011fu takdirde bu mallar taksim gere\u011fince zilyetleri ad\u0131na tespit olunur. Taksim murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra kadastrodan \u00f6nce tapusuz ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar \u00fczerinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, bu taksimin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u015fahit beyanlar\u0131yla ispat\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Mahkemenin TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676\/son maddesine g\u00f6re, kadastro i\u015flemlerinden sonra tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u00e7in vaki olacak miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131nda isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Taraflar aras\u0131nda miras taksimi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131 Veysel’e kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken\u2026\u201d[5]<\/p>\n
3. Miras Pay\u0131n\u0131n Devri S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Farklar\u0131<\/p>\n
Miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden farkl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. \u015e\u00f6yle ki; Miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin konusu, miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n sahip oldu\u011fu miras pay\u0131, yani terekedeki belirli bir mal veya hak de\u011fil, soyut nitelikteki payd\u0131r. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar devir s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n muvafakati olmadan kendi pay\u0131 \u00fczerinde tasarrufta bulunabilir. Taraflardan birinin miras\u00e7\u0131 olmas\u0131 zorunlu iken, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi de olabilir. \u00d6te yandan t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 zorunlu de\u011fildir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin konusu ise, terekedeki somut malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferleridir. Taraflar\u0131 mutlaka t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lard\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin taraf olmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, davan\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile imzalanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de, mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esine kat\u0131lma olana\u011f\u0131 yoktur. \u015e\u00f6yle ki, 20.05.2000 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” ise de, s\u00f6zle\u015fme bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finden, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin i\u00e7eri\u011findeki d\u00fczenlemelere g\u00f6re, miras\u00e7\u0131 …’nin miras hak ve hisselerini belli bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda muris …’in di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131na devretti\u011fi, di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin miras pay\u0131 devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, az yukar\u0131da bahsedilen tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda, 20.05.2000 tarihli “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi esnada dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u015ftirak halinde m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi olup, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda, kay\u0131t malikinin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devrine ili\u015fkin bulunan dayanak s\u00f6zle\u015fme TMK\u2019n\u0131n 677. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca kural olarak ge\u00e7erli ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. O halde, Mahkemece, davaya dayanak olarak sunulan 20.05.2000 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin TMK\u2019n\u0131n 677. maddesi uyar\u0131nca miras pay\u0131 devrine y\u00f6nelik olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin d\u00fczenleme tarihi itibar\u0131 ile ge\u00e7erli ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme oldu\u011fu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[6]<\/p>\n
4. Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Kaynaklanan Tapu \u0130ptali ile Tescil Davalar\u0131<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131 i\u00e7in taahh\u00fct edilen her bir hakk\u0131n ve mal\u0131n devrine ili\u015fkin tasarruf i\u015flemlerinin miras\u00e7\u0131larca ayr\u0131ca yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Tasarruf i\u015flemlerinin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde ise ifa davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lardan biri veya birka\u00e7\u0131, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin y\u00fckledi\u011fi bor\u00e7lar\u0131 yerine getirmezlerse, di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar dava a\u00e7arak taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin aynen uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayabilirler. Ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ve tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zilyetli\u011fin devri; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ise, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar\u0131n yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Tescil, terekedeki hakka ili\u015fkin bir tasarruf i\u015flemi niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan birlikte talep edilmelidir. Alacaklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek yoktur. Miras\u00e7\u0131lardan biri veya bir ka\u00e7\u0131, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini yerine getirmekten ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131rsa, aynen yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in aleyhlerine dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Bu dava sonucunda verilen olumlu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar ve \u00fczerlerindeki s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ayni haklar \u00fczerinde bireysel hak sahipli\u011fi ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olur.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi e\u011fer tam payla\u015fma \u015feklinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sona erdirir. Bu durumda art\u0131k miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bireysel hak sahipli\u011fi g\u00fcndeme gelir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin as\u0131l amac\u0131 miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sona erdirmektir. Ancak yaz\u0131l\u0131 miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yaln\u0131zca bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fundan miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sona ermesi i\u00e7in s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifa edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir. Bunun i\u00e7in de yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ve tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zilyetli\u011fin devri; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ise, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar\u0131n yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Yaz\u0131l\u0131 payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan t\u00fcm bor\u00e7lar\u0131n ifa edilmesiyle ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n aktifi kalmaz ve ancak o zaman ortakl\u0131k sona erer. \u0130fa kapsam\u0131nda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lara genel zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi olan on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 uygulan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan TMK\u2019n\u0131n 680 maddesi gere\u011fi \u201cBor\u00e7lar Kanununun ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fe ili\u015fkin genel h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri hakk\u0131nda da uygulan\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fe ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ba\u015f\u0131nda kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck halleri gelmektedir. Kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck halleri ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 27. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck nedenleri ile ay\u0131rt\u0131m g\u00fcc\u00fc yani ehliyetsizlik, \u015fekil ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve muvazaad\u0131r. Maddeye g\u00f6re “Kanunun emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine, ahlaka, kamu d\u00fczenine, ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 veya konusu imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler kesin olarak h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr.”<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck\u00a0(butlan); bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bat\u0131l olmas\u0131, ba\u015ftan itibaren kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bat\u0131l i\u015flem, ge\u00e7ersizlik sebebinin ortadan kalkmas\u0131, onay ya da ifa ile ge\u00e7erli hale gelmez. Herkes i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ersiz olup, yarar\u0131 bulunan herkes i\u015flemin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrebilir ve h\u00e2kimce resen dikkate al\u0131n\u0131r. Ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in yeniden ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. E\u011fer bir ifa s\u00f6z konusu ise taraflar istihkak veya sebepsiz zenginle\u015fme\u00a0davas\u0131 ile verdiklerini geri alabilirler. Ancak s\u00fcrekli bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkilerinde ge\u00e7ersizlik sebebi ortaya \u00e7\u0131kana kadar bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin h\u00fck\u00fcm do\u011furdu\u011fu kabul edilir. Ayr\u0131ca bazen h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck iddias\u0131n\u0131n TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesindeki d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu olabilir. Bu durumda bu iddia dikkate al\u0131nmaz. \u00d6rne\u011fin resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n al\u0131c\u0131ya devri ve sat\u0131\u015f paras\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 halinde yarat\u0131lan g\u00fcven duygusuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olacak \u015fekilde \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131ktan dolay\u0131 ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemez. S\u00fcr\u00fclse de d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131ktan dolay\u0131 dinlenmez. Arsa pay\u0131 devri kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ile ilgili Yarg\u0131tay \u0130BK\u2019n\u0131n 30.9.1988 tarih ve 1987\/2 Esas, 1988\/2 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 da bu y\u00f6ndedir. Yine ay\u0131rt etme g\u00fcc\u00fcne sahip olmayanlar\u0131n yapt\u0131klar\u0131 i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmenin d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Yarg\u0131tay \u0130BK\u2019n\u0131n 09.3.1955 tarih ve 1954\/22 Esas, 1955\/2 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 da bu y\u00f6ndedir.<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer ge\u00e7ersizlik nedenleri ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 28 maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 yararlanma (gabin), TBK\u2019n\u0131n 30-39 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen irade bozukluklar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere kural olarak irade bozukluklar\u0131 hukuki sonucu do\u011fmas\u0131na engel olmaz ancak kanunda d\u00fczenlenen s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde iradesi bozulan tarafa bu i\u015flemi iptal ettirme hakk\u0131 verir. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde i\u015flemin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi ask\u0131dad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u201c…\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\u00a0denir… 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\u00a0(hata), aldatma (hile) ve korkutma\u00a0(ikrah) ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme bi\u00e7imleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan birbirinden farkl\u0131d\u0131rlar.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere yan\u0131lma\u00a0(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\u00a0s\u00f6z konusudur.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk hukukunda irade bozuklu\u011funa ba\u011flanan yapt\u0131r\u0131m ise bir kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck\u00a0(butlan) h\u00e2li de\u011fildir… irade bozuklu\u011fuyla yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin, iradesi hata, hile\u00a0veya ikrahla sakatlanan kimseyi ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclerek, bu ki\u015fiye belli bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde kullanabilece\u011fi iptal hakk\u0131\u00a0tan\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 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. 30, BK. 23). Ancak taraflardan biri, di\u011ferinin aldatmas\u0131 sonucu s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapm\u0131\u015fsa, yan\u0131lma\u00a0esasl\u0131 olmasa bile, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir (TBK. 36\/1, BK. m. 28\/1)…\u201d[7]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Miras yoluyla intikal eden malda i\u015ftirak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ve payl\u0131 olarak tapu siciline tescil edilmi\u015fse o mal art\u0131k tereke mal\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar ve TMK’n\u0131n 676. maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen \u015fekilde taksime konu olamaz. (13.09.1995 tarihli ve 7830 Esas, 8711 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet olu\u015fmu\u015fsa miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tescil istenemez. Taraflar\u0131n murisi 08.03.2005 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. Davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz muris …’a aitken, 07.08.2007 tarihinde yap\u0131lan intikal ve 18.10.2007 tarihinde kat irtifak\u0131 tesis edilmesiyle tereke mal\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f, m\u00fc\u015fterek mal haline d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu tarihten sonra yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f miras pay devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersizdir\u2026\u201d[8]<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201c\u2026Davac\u0131 kadastro tespit tarihinden sonra yap\u0131lan miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 olarak dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, mahkemenin 3402 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kadastro Kanunu’nun 12\/3. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunan hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kabul\u00fcnde isabet bulunmamakta ise de; dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle yasaya uygun gerektirici nedenlere, delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik bulunmamas\u0131na ve 08.05.1973 tarihli taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden sonra, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n 02.06.1998 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen kadastro mahkemesi karar\u0131 ile tespit gibi payl\u0131 olarak davac\u0131 ve payda\u015flar\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edilmesine ve davac\u0131 yan\u0131n bu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar i\u00e7in kanunda \u00f6zel bir zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden genel zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca dava a\u00e7arak s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131n\u0131 istememi\u015f bulunmas\u0131na g\u00f6re\u2026\u201d[9]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026MK’n\u0131n 676. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re; tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara dair payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinden sonra t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ya da s\u00f6zle\u015fmede hak iddia eden taraf\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyetinin, m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete \u00e7evrilmesi durumunda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, yukarda bahsedildi\u011fi \u00fczere, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re ortak muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olup, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini imzalayan taraflar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011fundan ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Kald\u0131 ki, s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte elbirli\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi olan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na 03\/09\/2013 tarihli ve 15466 yevmiye numaral\u0131 akitle intikal g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f olup, resmi akite s\u00f6zle\u015fmede hak talep eden davac\u0131lar… ve… vekil arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Bu i\u015flem ile miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devrine dair 16\/07\/2013 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ortad\u0131r. Bu durumda, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bozuldu\u011fu ve art\u0131k hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furma \u00f6zelli\u011fini kaybetmi\u015f oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gereklidir. Bu sebeple bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak hak istenemez\u2026\u201d[10]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026TMK’n\u0131n 676 ve devam\u0131 maddeleri uyar\u0131nca taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ya da elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyetine konu bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
Davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n muris D.. A..’tan kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra 07.09.2009 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda taksim edildi\u011fi konusunda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ne var ki, bu tarihten sonra D.. A.. miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan 16.12.2009 tarihli intikal i\u015flemi ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payl\u0131 olarak adlar\u0131na tescili sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve ge\u00e7erlili\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete konu olup 07.09.2009 tarihli taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi daha sonra yap\u0131lan intikal i\u015flemi ile bozulmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesine karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[11]<\/p>\n
“…\u0130svi\u00e7re, Alman ve T\u00fcrk Hukukunda hukuki i\u015flemin \u015fekli unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 tespit eden emredici hukuk kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k sebebiyle hukuki i\u015flemin mevcudiyet kazanmamas\u0131 halinde hukuki i\u015flemin yoklu\u011fundan s\u00f6z edilir… Butlan\u00a0sebeplerine gelince, genel olarak butlan\u00a0halleri. BK\u2019n\u0131n 19 ve 20. maddelerinde belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlere g\u00f6re; konular\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan imk\u00e2ns\u0131z veya emredici hukuk kurallar\u0131na yahut ahlak ve adaba ayk\u0131r\u0131 olan hukuki i\u015flemler butlan sebebiyle ge\u00e7ersizdir. Kanunen uyulmas\u0131 zorunlu olan ve aksi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamayan hukuk kurallar\u0131, emredici \u00f6zellikleri itibariyle mutlak ve nisbi emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmler\u00a0diye iki gurupta toplan\u0131rlar. \u0130svi\u00e7re- T\u00fcrk Hukukunda \u00f6zel, ili\u015fkin, emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmlere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k halinde mutlak butlandan s\u00f6z edilir. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla, butlan durumunda hukuki i\u015flem \u015feklen mevcut olmakla beraber ama\u00e7lanan h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011furmaz. (HGK\u2019n\u0131n. 29.5.2002 g\u00fcn 2-441-433 K.) Belirtmek gerekir ki, Kanunun \u015fekil, ehliyet ve i\u00e7erik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan arad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ko\u015fullar\u0131 i\u00e7ermeyen hukuki i\u015flem mutlak olarak ge\u00e7ersizdir; dolay\u0131s\u0131yla da hi\u00e7bir hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmayan b\u00f6yle bir i\u015flem, h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmez…”[12]<\/p>\n
“…Bir davada, birden \u00e7ok hukuki sebebin bir arada incelenebilmesi bu nedenlerden birinin, di\u011ferinin incelenmesine imk\u00e2n verecek nitelikte olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r (Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 09.01.1974 Tarih ve 1972\/2-584-12 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131). Hata, hile\u00a0ve gabin, bir davada kademeli olarak incelenebilir. Dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise “ehliyetsizlik” iddias\u0131, hata, hile ve gabin iddias\u0131ndan \u00f6nce incelenir…”[13]<\/p>\n
5. G\u00f6revli Mahkeme<\/p>\n
Tapu iptali ile tescil istemli davalar ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ayn\u0131na (mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na) y\u00f6nelik davalard\u0131r. Bu nedenle g\u00f6revli mahkeme, HMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cDava konusunun de\u011fer ve miktar\u0131na bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarla, \u015fah\u0131s varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarda g\u00f6revli mahkeme, aksine bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a asliye hukuk mahkemesidir.\u201d<\/p>\n
6. Yetkili Mahkeme<\/p>\n
Yetkili mahkeme\u00a0ise, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun 12. maddesine g\u00f6re davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesi kesin yetkili mahkemedir. Farkl\u0131 yarg\u0131 \u00e7evrelerinde bulunan birden fazla ta\u015f\u0131nmaza elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi\u00a0istenilmi\u015fse, dava bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan birinin bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra art\u0131k o mahkeme kesin yetkili mahkeme\u00a0halini alacakt\u0131r. Bu yetki kural\u0131 kesin olup, aksine yetki s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u00a0yap\u0131lamaz ve HMK\u2019n\u0131n 19. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cYetkinin kesin oldu\u011fu davalarda, mahkeme yetkili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n sonuna kadar kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131rmak zorundad\u0131r; taraflar da mahkemenin yetkisiz oldu\u011funu her zaman ileri s\u00fcrebilir.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ayd\u0131n TEKDO\u011eAN<\/p>\n
Avukat<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
2. Hukuk Dairesi Emekli Ba\u015fkan\u0131<\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in:\u00a0
\nTEKDO\u011eAN, A., Ayni ve \u015eahsi Haklardan Kaynakl\u0131 Tapu \u0130ptali ile Tescil Davalar\u0131, 1. Bask\u0131, Nisan 2025, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, 1504 Sayfa;
\nTEKDO\u011eAN, A., Miras \u0130\u015f ve \u0130\u015flemleri ile Miras Davalar\u0131, 1. Bask\u0131, Temmuz 2024, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, 1625 Sayfa,<\/p>\n
[1] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2020\/17-220 K. 2020\/726 T. 6.10.2020<\/p>\n
[2] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2012\/6-1512 K. 2013\/704 T. 15.5.2013<\/p>\n
[3] Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2022\/7187 K. 2023\/5982 T. 5.12.2023<\/p>\n
[4] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2021\/122 K. 2021\/4895 T. 9.6.2021<\/p>\n
[5] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2011\/4810 K. 2012\/1143 T. 23.2.2012<\/p>\n
[6] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2019\/2658 K. 2021\/4148 T. 20.5.2021<\/p>\n
[7] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2018\/1-889 K. 2018\/1939 T. 13.12.2018<\/p>\n
[8] Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2022\/5980 K. 2022\/7201 T. 24.11.2022<\/p>\n
[9] Yarg\u0131tay 16. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2016\/15596 K. 2019\/7747 T. 26.11.2019<\/p>\n
[10] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2018\/10954 K. 2018\/14433 T. 26.6.2018<\/p>\n
[11] Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/5795 K. 2014\/11358 T. 20.10.2014<\/p>\n
[12] Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2013\/218 K. 2013\/1351 T. 30.1.2013<\/p>\n
[13] Yarg\u0131tay 15. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2009\/4222 K. 2010\/4818 T. 27.9.2010<\/p>\n
\u200b1. Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi<\/p>\n
Miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 payla\u015fmay\u0131 (tasfiyeyi) ama\u00e7lar, bu nedenle ge\u00e7icidir. Payla\u015fma ise iki \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilir; iradi ya da yarg\u0131 yoluyla. \u0130radi olan payla\u015fma ise TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yani miras payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile yap\u0131l\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131l\u0131r. Bu nedenle \u00e7ok tarafl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi ile hak sahipli\u011fini sona erdirmek ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bireysel hak sahipli\u011fini sa\u011flamak ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bu nedenle terekede hak sahibi olan yasal veya atanm\u0131\u015f t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar (veya temsilcileri) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur.<\/p>\n
Miras\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131na kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre\u00e7te terekenin her bir miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131 oran\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flemdir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 taahh\u00fct alt\u0131na girerler. Tereke aktifleri zorunlu olarak paylara b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcr ve bu paylar\u0131n hangi miras\u00e7\u0131ya ait oldu\u011funa karar verilir. Tereke pasifleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise bir zorunluluk olmay\u0131p, istenirse ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ntem pasifler i\u00e7inde yap\u0131labilir. Bu yolla tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi hak sahipli\u011fi sonland\u0131r\u0131larak, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ferdi hak sahipli\u011fi tesis edilmi\u015f olur.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi iki \u015fekilde yap\u0131labilir. Aynen (elden) payla\u015fma veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yoluyla.<\/p>\n
Terekenin t\u00fcm\u00fc ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde yani tam payla\u015fma \u015feklinde olabilece\u011fi gibi, terekedeki baz\u0131 mallar\u0131n payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 veya baz\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bu yolla miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde de yani k\u0131smi payla\u015fma \u015feklinde de olabilir. \u00d6zellikle tereke bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n payla\u015fma kapsam\u0131nda olmas\u0131 zorunlu de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc tereke bor\u00e7lar\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131lsa dahi bu bor\u00e7lardan dolay\u0131 t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere kar\u015f\u0131 m\u00fcteselsil sorumluluklar\u0131 devam eder. Pay\u0131ndan fazla \u00f6deme yapan miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n TMK\u2019n\u0131n 682. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lara r\u00fccu hakk\u0131 da sakl\u0131d\u0131r. K\u0131smi payla\u015ft\u0131rma halinde miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 devam eder. Bu \u015fekildeki s\u00f6zle\u015fme miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine benzer.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u20264721 Say\u0131l\u0131 TMK’n\u0131n 676 maddeye g\u00f6re, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra b\u00fct\u00fcn miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n veya temsilcilerinin iradelerinin birle\u015fmesi as\u0131l oldu\u011fundan, her birinin kendi pay\u0131na d\u00fc\u015feni ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n paylar\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fenler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak vazge\u00e7tikleri a\u00e7\u0131k ve kesin \u015fekilde belirlenmedik\u00e7e taksimin sabit oldu\u011fu kabul edilemeyecektir. Bu nedenle TMK’n\u0131n 676. maddesinde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekle ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f, 10.12.1952 tarihli ve 1950\/2 E., 1952\/4 K. say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda da taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ve yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 taksimin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in yeterli kabul edilmi\u015f, taksimde mutlak e\u015fitlik aranmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesi uyar\u0131nca terekeye tabi ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmak ko\u015fuluyla miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda taksimi ge\u00e7erli olup, taksimin ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda e\u015fit bir payla\u015f\u0131m gerekli de\u011fildir. Somut olayda yap\u0131lan payla\u015f\u0131mda hisselerin parasal de\u011ferine g\u00f6re a\u00e7\u0131k bir bedel fark\u0131 da bulunmamaktad\u0131r. E\u015f s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle edimler aras\u0131nda bir orans\u0131zl\u0131k bulundu\u011fu, varsa bu orans\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ciddi ve objektif olarak makul kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131n\u0131n beklenemeyece\u011fi bir durum yoktur. Takip konusu alacak miktar\u0131 ve payla\u015f\u0131m sonucu bor\u00e7luya d\u00fc\u015fen oran dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, daval\u0131 bor\u00e7lunun mal ka\u00e7\u0131rma kast\u0131yla hareket etti\u011fine dair somut deliller sunulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, aksine yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan t\u00fcm a\u015famalarda bor\u00e7lu daval\u0131n\u0131n bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6demek gayesiyle hareket etti\u011fi ve yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlerin mal ka\u00e7\u0131rmak i\u00e7in de\u011fil, taksim gayesiyle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya konulmu\u015ftur. Bu durumda mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[1]<\/p>\n
\u201c…uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar hakk\u0131nda miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda ge\u00e7erli bir taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; buradan var\u0131lacak sonuca g\u00f6re davan\u0131n kabul edilip edilmeyece\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r…676. maddeden a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere Payla\u015fma S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmad\u0131k\u00e7a ge\u00e7erli kabul edilemeyecektir… Ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden bahsedebilmek i\u00e7in, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n t\u00fcm payda\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir belgenin d\u00fczenlenmesi gerekmektedir. 10.12.1952 g\u00fcn ve 1950\/2 E., 1952\/4 K. say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ne i\u015faret edilmi\u015ftir. Bu \u015fekilde haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015f ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bulunmas\u0131 durumunda payda\u015flar bu belgeye dayanarak tapu iptali ve tescil talebinde bulunabileceklerinden ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesi\u00a0davas\u0131 a\u00e7malar\u0131nda hukuki yararlar\u0131 olmayacakt\u0131r. Eldeki davadaki taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin incelenmesinde; s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile d\u00fczenlenmedi\u011fi ve tamam\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan imzalanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r… Bu durumda, yukar\u0131da bahsedilen ilkelere g\u00f6re, ge\u00e7erli bir miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011finden mahkemece i\u015fin esas\u0131n\u0131n incelenip sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n fiilen taksim edildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r…\u201d[2]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 676. maddesi (743 Say\u0131l\u0131 MK. madde 611\u2013612), miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n tereke \u00fczerinde yapacaklar\u0131 taksimin, keza miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n birbirleri ile miras paylar\u0131n\u0131n temliki konusundaki yapacaklar\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ayn\u0131 Yasa’n\u0131n 677. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc gere\u011fince ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 ko\u015fulunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Her iki halde de, yap\u0131lacak tasarruflar\u0131n murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesinin olanakl\u0131 bulundu\u011fu sabittir. \u00d6te yandan, T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 678. maddesi d\u00fczenlemesi ile de, murisin sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ileride (murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra) intikal edecek terekedeki hakk\u0131yla ilgili olarak bir miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131larla veya \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir ki\u015fi ile yapaca\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmas\u0131 ve ayr\u0131ca miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n da s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yer almas\u0131 ve onun kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesinin zorunlu oldu\u011fu kural\u0131na yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131n vefat\u0131ndan sonra d\u00fczenlenen s\u00f6zle\u015fme “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” niteli\u011findedir. Bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile mirasb\u0131rakandan intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131n\u0131n, gelecekte y\u0131k\u0131l\u0131p yeniden yap\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde miras\u00e7\u0131lara kalacak yerler belirlenmi\u015ftir. Her ne kadar daha sonra bir k\u0131s\u0131m miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan miras paylar\u0131n\u0131 tapuda sat\u0131\u015f suretiyle daval\u0131 …’a temlik etmi\u015f iseler de bu sat\u0131\u015f ger\u00e7ek anlamda bir devir niteli\u011finde olmay\u0131p 01.09.1998 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin icras\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir i\u015flemdir\u2026\u201d[3]<\/p>\n
2. Ge\u00e7erlilik \u015eekli<\/p>\n
TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676\/3. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131k\u00e7a ge\u00e7erli olmaz. Adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil ge\u00e7erlilik \u015feklidir. T\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan imzalan\u0131r ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 ba\u011flar. Terekede devri resmi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar yer alsa dahi payla\u015fma i\u00e7in adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil yeterlidir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan s\u00f6zle\u015fme yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f olsa dahi, yani \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme kural olarak ge\u00e7ersiz ise de, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan edimler taraflarca tam olarak ifa edilmi\u015f ise, \u015fekil eksikli\u011fi nedeniyle ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcrmek, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2 maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma ilkesine ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. Bu nedenle s\u00f6zle\u015fme yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmasa bile iddia edilen s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fi edimlerin ifa edilmi\u015f olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti gerekir.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Dava, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesi kapsam\u0131nda miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n mevcut tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n davac\u0131lar ad\u0131na tescil istemine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
4721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 676. maddesi (M\u00dcLGA 743 Say\u0131l\u0131 TKM’n\u0131n 611.) uyar\u0131nca miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na (terekeye) d\u00e2hil ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi i\u00e7in t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile adi yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil yeterlidir. Miras payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 (taksim) ancak taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na d\u00e2hil, payla\u015f\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olan miras mallar i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusudur. Payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ya da di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n oluruyla bir veya birka\u00e7 miras\u00e7\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edilen durumlarda miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131 sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz.<\/p>\n
Hemen belirtilmelidir ki, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekil, bir ispat ko\u015fulu de\u011fil, ge\u00e7erlilik ko\u015fuludur. TBK\u2019n\u0131n 11\/2. maddesine g\u00f6re kanunun emretti\u011fi \u015feklin dereceyi \u015fumul ve tesisi hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fkaca bir h\u00fck\u00fcm tayin olunmam\u0131\u015f ise, akit bu \u015fekle riayet olunmad\u0131k\u00e7a sahih olmaz. \u015eekle ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n m\u00fceyyidesi az \u00f6nce a\u00e7\u0131klanan yasa maddesinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir \u015feklin kapsam ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda ba\u015fka bir h\u00fck\u00fcm konulmam\u0131\u015f ise, \u015fekle uyulmadan yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr. H\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011fe ba\u011flanan sonu\u00e7 29.9.1988 tarihli ve 2\/2 Say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde belirtildi\u011fi gibi; kanun, \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 bir ge\u00e7erlilik \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunmakta ve buna uyulmadan yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere ge\u00e7ersizlik m\u00fceyyidesini (hukuki sonucunu) ba\u011flamaktad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131 emredici nitelikte oldu\u011fundan, h\u00e2kim \u015fekil noksanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 her safhada resen g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcne almak zorundad\u0131r. 12.4.1944 tarihli ve 1943\/14 Esas, 1944\/13 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131nda da belirtildi\u011fi gibi, ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde, kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015fekle uyulmamas\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyi h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz k\u0131lar ve bu husus itiraz nedeni oldu\u011fundan h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan do\u011frudan do\u011fruya g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulur.<\/p>\n
Ancak \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmede, \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fme kural olarak ge\u00e7ersiz olmakla birlikte, bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan edimler taraflarca tam olarak ifa edilmi\u015f ise, \u015fekil eksikli\u011fi nedeniyle ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcrmek, hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur\u2026<\/p>\n
\u015eimdi bu nokta da; “d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma” ve “hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131” ilkeleri \u00fczerinde durulmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
4721 Say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun \u201cD\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 2. maddesinde; \u201cHerkes, haklar\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken ve bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirirken d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na uymak zorundad\u0131r. Bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeni korumaz.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re; d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck, herkesin uymas\u0131 gerekli olan genel ve objektif bir davran\u0131\u015f kural\u0131d\u0131r. Bu kural, ki\u015filerin taraf\u0131 olduklar\u0131 hukuki ili\u015fkilerde d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, ahlakl\u0131 ve di\u011fer ki\u015filerde yarat\u0131lan g\u00fcvenle tutarl\u0131 \u015fekilde davranmalar\u0131n\u0131 ifade eder. Buna g\u00f6re belirli bir hukuki ili\u015fkide d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f; toplumdaki d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu ve orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 bir ki\u015finin, genel ahlak, do\u011fruluk ve kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven esaslar\u0131na uygun davran\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imidir. D\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na uygun bu davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n belirlenmesinde, toplumda ge\u00e7erli olan genel ahlak kurallar\u0131, g\u00fcn\u00fcn adet ve uygulamalar\u0131, davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu hukuki ili\u015fkilerin i\u00e7erik ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131 da dikkate al\u0131nacakt\u0131r\u2026<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla d\u00fcr\u00fcst davranma \u201cbir hak sahibinin hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131rken veya bir bor\u00e7lunun borcunu yerine getirirken iyi ve do\u011fru hareket etmesi yani d\u00fcr\u00fcst, namuslu, makul, fiilinin neticesini bilen, orta zek\u00e2l\u0131 her insan\u0131n benzer hadiselerde takip edecek oldu\u011fu yolda hareket etmesi\u201d anlam\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bir hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle ba\u015fkas\u0131na bir zarar verilmesi hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur. TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc herkesin haklar\u0131n\u0131, toplumda ge\u00e7erli do\u011fruluk d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck ve i\u015f ili\u015fkilerinin gerektirdi\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcven anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na uygun olarak kullanmas\u0131n\u0131 emreder. Hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’na g\u00f6re d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131 verir. Bunun yan\u0131nda ayr\u0131ca hak sahibinin ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131 \u0131zrar kast\u0131yla hareket etmi\u015f olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya gerek yoktur. \u00d6nemli olan ba\u015fkas\u0131na zarar vermek kast\u0131 de\u011fil, hakk\u0131n d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 sonucunda ba\u015fkas\u0131n\u0131n zarar g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bir hakk\u0131n kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a adaletsizlik olu\u015fturdu\u011fu, ger\u00e7ek hakk\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 ve bireyin korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in t\u00fcm hukuki yollar\u0131n kapal\u0131 bulundu\u011fu zorunluluk hallerinde, TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesi uygulama alan\u0131 bulur ve ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc bir imkan sa\u011flar; haks\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczeltici, yasadaki kurallar\u0131 tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 fonksiyonunu yerine getirir (25.1.1984 tarihli ve 1983\/3 E., 1984\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 2. maddesinin ikinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 yasa\u011f\u0131 kural\u0131n\u0131n amac\u0131, h\u00e2kime \u00f6zel ve istina\u00ee hallerde (adalete uygun d\u00fc\u015fecek \u015fekilde) h\u00fck\u00fcm verme imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamakt\u0131r\u2026<\/p>\n
Buna g\u00f6re; dava dilek\u00e7esinde daval\u0131lar murisleri ve murisin ilk e\u015finden olma evlatlar\u0131… ile …’in miras taksimi sonucu kendilerine isabet eden ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 adlar\u0131na kaydettirdikleri iddia edildi\u011fine g\u00f6re ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu kabul edilen 09.09.1984 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi muristen, … ile… veya miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na intikal ya da murise ait herhangi bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tescil edilip edilmedi\u011fi yani daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen miras taksimine dair edimin ifas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda bir edinme olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda Mahkemece herhangi bir inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, iddia edildi\u011fi \u00fczere daval\u0131larca ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen miras taksimi dolay\u0131s\u0131 ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz edinilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n tespiti halinde art\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmenin hakk\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131m\u0131 mahiyetinde olaca\u011f\u0131 ve bir hakk\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 hukuk d\u00fczeni korumayaca\u011f\u0131 d\u00fcsturuna g\u00f6re taraflar aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu durumda, Mahkemece, dava dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u00fczere, ge\u00e7erlilik \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ersiz kabul edilen 09.09.1984 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi… ile… veya miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na murise ait herhangi bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n intikal veya tespit g\u00f6r\u00fcp g\u00f6rmedi\u011fi hususunda toplanan ve toplanacak deliller kapsam\u0131nda ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131larak sonucuna g\u00f6re karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[4]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz daval\u0131 Veysel ad\u0131na 18.3.2007 tarihinde yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda tespit g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f, tutana\u011f\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine 01.05.2007 tarihinde daval\u0131 Veysel ad\u0131na tapuya tescil edilmi\u015ftir. Taraflar\u0131n murisi S. \u00d6. 11.02.1987 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015f olup, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi dinlenen daval\u0131 tan\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n beyanlar\u0131na g\u00f6re, 2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131ndan \u00f6nce vaki olmu\u015ftur. 3402 say\u0131l\u0131 Kadastro Kanununun 15\/1-3 maddesine g\u00f6re, tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mallar\u0131n ayn\u0131 Kanunun 14. maddesi gere\u011fince belirlenen zilyetleri aras\u0131nda taksim edildikleri belgelerle veya bilirki\u015fi veyahut tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131yla sabit oldu\u011fu takdirde bu mallar taksim gere\u011fince zilyetleri ad\u0131na tespit olunur. Taksim murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra kadastrodan \u00f6nce tapusuz ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar \u00fczerinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, bu taksimin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u015fahit beyanlar\u0131yla ispat\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Mahkemenin TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676\/son maddesine g\u00f6re, kadastro i\u015flemlerinden sonra tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u00e7in vaki olacak miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin kanun h\u00fckm\u00fc g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131nda isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Taraflar aras\u0131nda miras taksimi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daval\u0131 Veysel’e kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, davan\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekirken\u2026\u201d[5]<\/p>\n
3. Miras Pay\u0131n\u0131n Devri S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Farklar\u0131<\/p>\n
Miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden farkl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. \u015e\u00f6yle ki; Miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin konusu, miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n sahip oldu\u011fu miras pay\u0131, yani terekedeki belirli bir mal veya hak de\u011fil, soyut nitelikteki payd\u0131r. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar devir s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n muvafakati olmadan kendi pay\u0131 \u00fczerinde tasarrufta bulunabilir. Taraflardan birinin miras\u00e7\u0131 olmas\u0131 zorunlu iken, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi de olabilir. \u00d6te yandan t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 zorunlu de\u011fildir. Buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin konusu ise, terekedeki somut malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferleridir. Taraflar\u0131 mutlaka t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lard\u0131r. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin taraf olmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, davan\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile imzalanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f ise de, mahkemenin gerek\u00e7esine kat\u0131lma olana\u011f\u0131 yoktur. \u015e\u00f6yle ki, 20.05.2000 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” ise de, s\u00f6zle\u015fme bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekti\u011finden, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin i\u00e7eri\u011findeki d\u00fczenlemelere g\u00f6re, miras\u00e7\u0131 …’nin miras hak ve hisselerini belli bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda muris …’in di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131na devretti\u011fi, di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin miras pay\u0131 devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakla, az yukar\u0131da bahsedilen tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulunduruldu\u011funda, 20.05.2000 tarihli “Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi” ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi esnada dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar i\u015ftirak halinde m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi olup, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda, kay\u0131t malikinin miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lan taraflar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131lan ve miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devrine ili\u015fkin bulunan dayanak s\u00f6zle\u015fme TMK\u2019n\u0131n 677. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca kural olarak ge\u00e7erli ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. O halde, Mahkemece, davaya dayanak olarak sunulan 20.05.2000 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin TMK\u2019n\u0131n 677. maddesi uyar\u0131nca miras pay\u0131 devrine y\u00f6nelik olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin d\u00fczenleme tarihi itibar\u0131 ile ge\u00e7erli ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme oldu\u011fu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[6]<\/p>\n
4. Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden Kaynaklanan Tapu \u0130ptali ile Tescil Davalar\u0131<\/p>\n
S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131 i\u00e7in taahh\u00fct edilen her bir hakk\u0131n ve mal\u0131n devrine ili\u015fkin tasarruf i\u015flemlerinin miras\u00e7\u0131larca ayr\u0131ca yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Tasarruf i\u015flemlerinin yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 halinde ise ifa davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lardan biri veya birka\u00e7\u0131, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin y\u00fckledi\u011fi bor\u00e7lar\u0131 yerine getirmezlerse, di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar dava a\u00e7arak taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin aynen uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayabilirler. Ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ve tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zilyetli\u011fin devri; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ise, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar\u0131n yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Tescil, terekedeki hakka ili\u015fkin bir tasarruf i\u015flemi niteli\u011fini ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n t\u00fcm\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan birlikte talep edilmelidir. Alacaklar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ayr\u0131ca alaca\u011f\u0131n temliki s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek yoktur. Miras\u00e7\u0131lardan biri veya bir ka\u00e7\u0131, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini yerine getirmekten ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131rsa, aynen yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in aleyhlerine dava a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Bu dava sonucunda verilen olumlu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesi \u00fczerine, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar ve \u00fczerlerindeki s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 ayni haklar \u00fczerinde bireysel hak sahipli\u011fi ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olur.<\/p>\n
Payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi e\u011fer tam payla\u015fma \u015feklinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 sona erdirir. Bu durumda art\u0131k miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bireysel hak sahipli\u011fi g\u00fcndeme gelir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin as\u0131l amac\u0131 miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na sona erdirmektir. Ancak yaz\u0131l\u0131 miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yaln\u0131zca bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fundan miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n sona ermesi i\u00e7in s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifa edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 gerekir. Bunun i\u00e7in de yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131kland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131rlar ve tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 olmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden zilyetli\u011fin devri; ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ise, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar\u0131n yerine getirilmesi i\u00e7in tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne tescil yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. Yaz\u0131l\u0131 payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan t\u00fcm bor\u00e7lar\u0131n ifa edilmesiyle ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n aktifi kalmaz ve ancak o zaman ortakl\u0131k sona erer. \u0130fa kapsam\u0131nda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lara genel zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi olan on y\u0131ll\u0131k zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 uygulan\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan TMK\u2019n\u0131n 680 maddesi gere\u011fi \u201cBor\u00e7lar Kanununun ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fe ili\u015fkin genel h\u00fck\u00fcmleri, payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri hakk\u0131nda da uygulan\u0131r.\u201d<\/p>\n
Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fe ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ba\u015f\u0131nda kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck halleri gelmektedir. Kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck halleri ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 27. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck nedenleri ile ay\u0131rt\u0131m g\u00fcc\u00fc yani ehliyetsizlik, \u015fekil ko\u015fullar\u0131 ve muvazaad\u0131r. Maddeye g\u00f6re “Kanunun emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine, ahlaka, kamu d\u00fczenine, ki\u015filik haklar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 veya konusu imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler kesin olarak h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr.”<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck\u00a0(butlan); bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bat\u0131l olmas\u0131, ba\u015ftan itibaren kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fcz olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bat\u0131l i\u015flem, ge\u00e7ersizlik sebebinin ortadan kalkmas\u0131, onay ya da ifa ile ge\u00e7erli hale gelmez. Herkes i\u00e7in ge\u00e7ersiz olup, yarar\u0131 bulunan herkes i\u015flemin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrebilir ve h\u00e2kimce resen dikkate al\u0131n\u0131r. Ge\u00e7erli olabilmesi i\u00e7in yeniden ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir. E\u011fer bir ifa s\u00f6z konusu ise taraflar istihkak veya sebepsiz zenginle\u015fme\u00a0davas\u0131 ile verdiklerini geri alabilirler. Ancak s\u00fcrekli bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkilerinde ge\u00e7ersizlik sebebi ortaya \u00e7\u0131kana kadar bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkisinin h\u00fck\u00fcm do\u011furdu\u011fu kabul edilir. Ayr\u0131ca bazen h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck iddias\u0131n\u0131n TMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesindeki d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu olabilir. Bu durumda bu iddia dikkate al\u0131nmaz. \u00d6rne\u011fin resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmayan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n al\u0131c\u0131ya devri ve sat\u0131\u015f paras\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 halinde yarat\u0131lan g\u00fcven duygusuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 olacak \u015fekilde \u015fekle ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131ktan dolay\u0131 ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclemez. S\u00fcr\u00fclse de d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131ktan dolay\u0131 dinlenmez. Arsa pay\u0131 devri kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 in\u015faat s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ile ilgili Yarg\u0131tay \u0130BK\u2019n\u0131n 30.9.1988 tarih ve 1987\/2 Esas, 1988\/2 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 da bu y\u00f6ndedir. Yine ay\u0131rt etme g\u00fcc\u00fcne sahip olmayanlar\u0131n yapt\u0131klar\u0131 i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrmenin d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 olamayaca\u011f\u0131na y\u00f6nelik Yarg\u0131tay \u0130BK\u2019n\u0131n 09.3.1955 tarih ve 1954\/22 Esas, 1955\/2 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 da bu y\u00f6ndedir.<\/p>\n
Di\u011fer ge\u00e7ersizlik nedenleri ise TBK\u2019n\u0131n 28 maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 yararlanma (gabin), TBK\u2019n\u0131n 30-39 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen irade bozukluklar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere kural olarak irade bozukluklar\u0131 hukuki sonucu do\u011fmas\u0131na engel olmaz ancak kanunda d\u00fczenlenen s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde iradesi bozulan tarafa bu i\u015flemi iptal ettirme hakk\u0131 verir. Bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde i\u015flemin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi ask\u0131dad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u201c…\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\u00a0denir… 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\u00a0(hata), aldatma (hile) ve korkutma\u00a0(ikrah) ger\u00e7ekle\u015fme bi\u00e7imleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan birbirinden farkl\u0131d\u0131rlar.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere yan\u0131lma\u00a0(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\u00a0s\u00f6z konusudur.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcrk hukukunda irade bozuklu\u011funa ba\u011flanan yapt\u0131r\u0131m ise bir kesin h\u00fck\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck\u00a0(butlan) h\u00e2li de\u011fildir… irade bozuklu\u011fuyla yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin, iradesi hata, hile\u00a0veya ikrahla sakatlanan kimseyi ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclerek, bu ki\u015fiye belli bir s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde kullanabilece\u011fi iptal hakk\u0131\u00a0tan\u0131m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 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. 30, BK. 23). Ancak taraflardan biri, di\u011ferinin aldatmas\u0131 sonucu s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapm\u0131\u015fsa, yan\u0131lma\u00a0esasl\u0131 olmasa bile, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeyle ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir (TBK. 36\/1, BK. m. 28\/1)…\u201d[7]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026Miras yoluyla intikal eden malda i\u015ftirak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ve payl\u0131 olarak tapu siciline tescil edilmi\u015fse o mal art\u0131k tereke mal\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar ve TMK’n\u0131n 676. maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen \u015fekilde taksime konu olamaz. (13.09.1995 tarihli ve 7830 Esas, 8711 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay 2. Hukuk Dairesi) Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyet olu\u015fmu\u015fsa miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tescil istenemez. Taraflar\u0131n murisi 08.03.2005 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. Davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz muris …’a aitken, 07.08.2007 tarihinde yap\u0131lan intikal ve 18.10.2007 tarihinde kat irtifak\u0131 tesis edilmesiyle tereke mal\u0131 olmaktan \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f, m\u00fc\u015fterek mal haline d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu tarihten sonra yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015f miras pay devri s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi resmi \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ge\u00e7ersizdir\u2026\u201d[8]<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201c\u2026Davac\u0131 kadastro tespit tarihinden sonra yap\u0131lan miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 olarak dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6re, mahkemenin 3402 Say\u0131l\u0131 Kadastro Kanunu’nun 12\/3. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunan hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7ti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kabul\u00fcnde isabet bulunmamakta ise de; dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fine, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle yasaya uygun gerektirici nedenlere, delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik bulunmamas\u0131na ve 08.05.1973 tarihli taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden sonra, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n 02.06.1998 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen kadastro mahkemesi karar\u0131 ile tespit gibi payl\u0131 olarak davac\u0131 ve payda\u015flar\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edilmesine ve davac\u0131 yan\u0131n bu karar\u0131n kesinle\u015fmesinden sonra, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinden do\u011fan bor\u00e7lar i\u00e7in kanunda \u00f6zel bir zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden genel zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca dava a\u00e7arak s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifas\u0131n\u0131 istememi\u015f bulunmas\u0131na g\u00f6re\u2026\u201d[9]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026MK’n\u0131n 676. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcne g\u00f6re; tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara dair payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131ca, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinden sonra t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ya da s\u00f6zle\u015fmede hak iddia eden taraf\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyetinin, m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete \u00e7evrilmesi durumunda s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn kabul\u00fc gereklidir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, yukarda bahsedildi\u011fi \u00fczere, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyet h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re ortak muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 olup, miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini imzalayan taraflar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011fundan ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine kat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Kald\u0131 ki, s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte elbirli\u011fi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine tabi olan ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ad\u0131na 03\/09\/2013 tarihli ve 15466 yevmiye numaral\u0131 akitle intikal g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f olup, resmi akite s\u00f6zle\u015fmede hak talep eden davac\u0131lar… ve… vekil arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile kat\u0131lm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Bu i\u015flem ile miras pay\u0131n\u0131n devrine dair 16\/07\/2013 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden d\u00f6n\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ortad\u0131r. Bu durumda, taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bozuldu\u011fu ve art\u0131k hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furma \u00f6zelli\u011fini kaybetmi\u015f oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc gereklidir. Bu sebeple bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak hak istenemez\u2026\u201d[10]<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026TMK’n\u0131n 676 ve devam\u0131 maddeleri uyar\u0131nca taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011funun kabul edilebilmesi i\u00e7in dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n muris ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 ya da elbirli\u011fi m\u00fclkiyetine konu bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz olmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
Davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n muris D.. A..’tan kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnden sonra 07.09.2009 tarihli miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda taksim edildi\u011fi konusunda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Ne var ki, bu tarihten sonra D.. A.. miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan 16.12.2009 tarihli intikal i\u015flemi ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payl\u0131 olarak adlar\u0131na tescili sa\u011flanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve ge\u00e7erlili\u011finden s\u00f6z edilemez. Davan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete konu olup 07.09.2009 tarihli taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi daha sonra yap\u0131lan intikal i\u015flemi ile bozulmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n giderilmesine karar verilmesi gerekirken\u2026\u201d[11]<\/p>\n
“…\u0130svi\u00e7re, Alman ve T\u00fcrk Hukukunda hukuki i\u015flemin \u015fekli unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 tespit eden emredici hukuk kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k sebebiyle hukuki i\u015flemin mevcudiyet kazanmamas\u0131 halinde hukuki i\u015flemin yoklu\u011fundan s\u00f6z edilir… Butlan\u00a0sebeplerine gelince, genel olarak butlan\u00a0halleri. BK\u2019n\u0131n 19 ve 20. maddelerinde belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlere g\u00f6re; konular\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan imk\u00e2ns\u0131z veya emredici hukuk kurallar\u0131na yahut ahlak ve adaba ayk\u0131r\u0131 olan hukuki i\u015flemler butlan sebebiyle ge\u00e7ersizdir. Kanunen uyulmas\u0131 zorunlu olan ve aksi kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamayan hukuk kurallar\u0131, emredici \u00f6zellikleri itibariyle mutlak ve nisbi emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmler\u00a0diye iki gurupta toplan\u0131rlar. \u0130svi\u00e7re- T\u00fcrk Hukukunda \u00f6zel, ili\u015fkin, emredici h\u00fck\u00fcmlere ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131k halinde mutlak butlandan s\u00f6z edilir. Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla, butlan durumunda hukuki i\u015flem \u015feklen mevcut olmakla beraber ama\u00e7lanan h\u00fck\u00fcmleri do\u011furmaz. (HGK\u2019n\u0131n. 29.5.2002 g\u00fcn 2-441-433 K.) Belirtmek gerekir ki, Kanunun \u015fekil, ehliyet ve i\u00e7erik bak\u0131m\u0131ndan arad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ko\u015fullar\u0131 i\u00e7ermeyen hukuki i\u015flem mutlak olarak ge\u00e7ersizdir; dolay\u0131s\u0131yla da hi\u00e7bir hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmayan b\u00f6yle bir i\u015flem, h\u00fck\u00fcm ifade etmez…”[12]<\/p>\n
“…Bir davada, birden \u00e7ok hukuki sebebin bir arada incelenebilmesi bu nedenlerden birinin, di\u011ferinin incelenmesine imk\u00e2n verecek nitelikte olmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r (Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu’nun 09.01.1974 Tarih ve 1972\/2-584-12 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131). Hata, hile\u00a0ve gabin, bir davada kademeli olarak incelenebilir. Dayan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise “ehliyetsizlik” iddias\u0131, hata, hile ve gabin iddias\u0131ndan \u00f6nce incelenir…”[13]<\/p>\n
5. G\u00f6revli Mahkeme<\/p>\n
Tapu iptali ile tescil istemli davalar ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ayn\u0131na (mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na) y\u00f6nelik davalard\u0131r. Bu nedenle g\u00f6revli mahkeme, HMK\u2019n\u0131n 2. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cDava konusunun de\u011fer ve miktar\u0131na bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 haklar\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarla, \u015fah\u0131s varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin davalarda g\u00f6revli mahkeme, aksine bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a asliye hukuk mahkemesidir.\u201d<\/p>\n
6. Yetkili Mahkeme<\/p>\n
Yetkili mahkeme\u00a0ise, 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemesi Kanunu\u2019nun 12. maddesine g\u00f6re davaya konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesi kesin yetkili mahkemedir. Farkl\u0131 yarg\u0131 \u00e7evrelerinde bulunan birden fazla ta\u015f\u0131nmaza elatman\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi\u00a0istenilmi\u015fse, dava bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan birinin bulundu\u011fu yer mahkemesinde a\u00e7\u0131labilir. Dava a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra art\u0131k o mahkeme kesin yetkili mahkeme\u00a0halini alacakt\u0131r. Bu yetki kural\u0131 kesin olup, aksine yetki s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi\u00a0yap\u0131lamaz ve HMK\u2019n\u0131n 19. maddesine g\u00f6re \u201cYetkinin kesin oldu\u011fu davalarda, mahkeme yetkili olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n sonuna kadar kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131rmak zorundad\u0131r; taraflar da mahkemenin yetkisiz oldu\u011funu her zaman ileri s\u00fcrebilir.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ayd\u0131n TEKDO\u011eAN<\/p>\n
Avukat<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
2. Hukuk Dairesi Emekli Ba\u015fkan\u0131<\/p>\n
————-<\/p>\n
Ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi i\u00e7in:\u00a0
\nTEKDO\u011eAN, A., Ayni ve \u015eahsi Haklardan Kaynakl\u0131 Tapu \u0130ptali ile Tescil Davalar\u0131, 1. Bask\u0131, Nisan 2025, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, 1504 Sayfa;
\nTEKDO\u011eAN, A., Miras \u0130\u015f ve \u0130\u015flemleri ile Miras Davalar\u0131, 1. Bask\u0131, Temmuz 2024, Se\u00e7kin Yay\u0131nevi, 1625 Sayfa,<\/p>\n
[1] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2020\/17-220 K. 2020\/726 T. 6.10.2020<\/p>\n
[2] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2012\/6-1512 K. 2013\/704 T. 15.5.2013<\/p>\n
[3] Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2022\/7187 K. 2023\/5982 T. 5.12.2023<\/p>\n
[4] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2021\/122 K. 2021\/4895 T. 9.6.2021<\/p>\n
[5] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2011\/4810 K. 2012\/1143 T. 23.2.2012<\/p>\n
[6] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2019\/2658 K. 2021\/4148 T. 20.5.2021<\/p>\n
[7] Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu E. 2018\/1-889 K. 2018\/1939 T. 13.12.2018<\/p>\n
[8] Yarg\u0131tay 7. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2022\/5980 K. 2022\/7201 T. 24.11.2022<\/p>\n
[9] Yarg\u0131tay 16. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2016\/15596 K. 2019\/7747 T. 26.11.2019<\/p>\n
[10] Yarg\u0131tay 8. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2018\/10954 K. 2018\/14433 T. 26.6.2018<\/p>\n
[11] Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2014\/5795 K. 2014\/11358 T. 20.10.2014<\/p>\n
[12] Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2013\/218 K. 2013\/1351 T. 30.1.2013<\/p>\n
[13] Yarg\u0131tay 15. Hukuk Dairesi E. 2009\/4222 K. 2010\/4818 T. 27.9.2010\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
1. Miras Taksim S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi Miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 payla\u015fmay\u0131 (tasfiyeyi) ama\u00e7lar, bu nedenle ge\u00e7icidir. Payla\u015fma ise iki \u015fekilde ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilir; iradi ya da yarg\u0131 yoluyla. \u0130radi olan payla\u015fma ise TMK\u2019n\u0131n 676. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yani miras payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile yap\u0131l\u0131r. Miras taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda yap\u0131l\u0131r. Bu nedenle \u00e7ok tarafl\u0131 bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmedir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerle yap\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc bu s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi ile hak sahipli\u011fini sona erdirmek ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bireysel hak sahipli\u011fini sa\u011flamak ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bu nedenle terekede hak sahibi olan yasal veya atanm\u0131\u015f t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar (veya temsilcileri) taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131 zorunludur. Miras\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131ndan payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131na kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre\u00e7te terekenin her bir miras\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131 oran\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ama\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bor\u00e7land\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 bir i\u015flemdir. Miras\u00e7\u0131lar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 taahh\u00fct alt\u0131na girerler. Tereke aktifleri zorunlu olarak paylara b\u00f6l\u00fcn\u00fcr ve bu paylar\u0131n hangi miras\u00e7\u0131ya ait oldu\u011funa karar verilir. Tereke pasifleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise bir zorunluluk olmay\u0131p, istenirse ayn\u0131 y\u00f6ntem pasifler i\u00e7inde yap\u0131labilir. Bu yolla tereke \u00fczerindeki elbirli\u011fi hak sahipli\u011fi sonland\u0131r\u0131larak, miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n ferdi hak sahipli\u011fi tesis edilmi\u015f olur. Payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi iki \u015fekilde yap\u0131labilir. Aynen (elden) payla\u015fma veya yaz\u0131l\u0131 payla\u015fma s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yoluyla. Terekenin t\u00fcm\u00fc ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda payla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde yani tam payla\u015fma \u015feklinde olabilece\u011fi gibi, terekedeki baz\u0131 mallar\u0131n payla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 veya baz\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n bu yolla miras ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ayr\u0131lmas\u0131 \u015feklinde de yani k\u0131smi …<\/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-78867","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n