T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6. A. VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/27727)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025<\/p>\n
\u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Basri BA\u011eCI<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00d6mer \u00c7INAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Metin KIRATLI<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
C. Ece YALIM<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucular<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Kerim TOP\u00c7UO\u011eLU<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Ba\u015fvuru devam ederken vefat eden C.A.n\u0131n yasal miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 olan Pamuk Ate\u015f, Pamuk Turan, Nurg\u00fcl Ate\u015f, \u00d6mer Ate\u015f, Zatiye Ate\u015f, Emin Ate\u015f ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirmek istediklerini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Yasal miras\u00e7\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucular bireysel ba\u015fvurunun taraf\u0131 h\u00e2line gelmi\u015fse de anlat\u0131m kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan C.A. ba\u015fvurucu olarak nitelendirilecektir.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir:<\/p>\n
4. T.A.n\u0131n ve D.A.n\u0131n 30\/9\/1975 tarihinde Tirebolu Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 1033 yevmiye numaras\u0131yla Nisan 1937 tarihli ve 66; Mart 1953 tarihli ve 225, 226; Nisan 1318 daim\u00ee tarihli ve 212 s\u0131ra numaralar\u0131nda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki miras hisseleri ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
5. M.A. 26\/11\/1975 tarihinde Tirebolu Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tasarrufun iptali davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M.A. dava dilek\u00e7esinde, kendisi ile birlikte m\u00fc\u015fterek muris olan daval\u0131lar ba\u015fvurucu, D.A. ve T.A.n\u0131n kendisinin r\u0131za ve muvafakati olmadan dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki i\u015ftirak h\u00e2linde m\u00fclkiyeti, k\u00f6y muhtarl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen ilmuhaber ile m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2ldeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrd\u00fckten sonra daval\u0131 T.A. ve D.A.n\u0131n hisselerini di\u011fer daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya satt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu ilm\u00fchaber senedindeki imzan\u0131n kendisine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sahte oldu\u011funu belirterek tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptalini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
6. Mahkeme; davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar\u0131n muris b\u0131rakan \u00d6.A.n\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hisselerine davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131lar\u0131n murisin \u00f6l\u00fcm tarihi itibar\u0131yla i\u015ftirak h\u00e2linde malik olduklar\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131lar D.A. ve T.A.n\u0131n m\u00fcracaat\u0131 sonucu tapuda i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2ldeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, daha sonra di\u011fer daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak miras\u00e7\u0131lardan biri olan davac\u0131 M.A.n\u0131n yap\u0131lan i\u015flemlere r\u0131za ve muvafakati olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek dava a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n iktisap s\u00fctunlar\u0131nda ve intikale ili\u015fkin belgelerde miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n k\u00f6y muhtarl\u0131\u011f\u0131nca d\u00fczenlenen ilm\u00fchaber ile i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2ldeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, M.A.n\u0131n ilm\u00fchaberdeki imzan\u0131n kendisine ait olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6z konusu i\u015fleme muvafakatinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtti\u011fini, daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan M.A.n\u0131n beyan\u0131n\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fini, daval\u0131lar\u0131n dava konusu tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n eski h\u00e2le d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesini istedi\u011fini belirtmi\u015f ve b\u00fct\u00fcn miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n r\u0131za ve muvafakati olmadan s\u00f6z konusu i\u015flemin yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle 6\/4\/1976 tarihinde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n imzas\u0131n\u0131n taklit edilmesi suretiyle usuls\u00fcz \u015fekilde yap\u0131lan i\u015flemin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu, 1975 tarihli ve 165, 166, 167 numaral\u0131 tapulardaki devir i\u015fleminin iptali ile murislere ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki m\u00fclkiyetin i\u015ftirak h\u00e2linde m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesine karar vermi\u015f ve an\u0131lan karar 16\/6\/1976 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
7. 26\/4\/2006 tarihinde Tirebolu Tapu Sicil M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 506 yevmiye No.lu i\u015flemiyle Tirebolu il\u00e7esi \u00c7e\u011fel k\u00f6y\u00fcnde yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131nda Nisan 2016 tarihli ve 14, 15, 16 numaralar\u0131nda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar tespit edilerek tapu kayd\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucu, Espiye Kadastro Mahkemesinde (Kadastro Mahkemesi) 10\/4\/2007 tarihinde kadastro tespitine itiraz davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu dava dilek\u00e7esinde murisleri \u00d6.A.dan intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hisselerinin daval\u0131lardan T.A. ve D.A. taraf\u0131ndan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile kendisine sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f bedelini \u00f6dedi\u011fini ancak daha sonra a\u00e7\u0131lan tapu iptal davas\u0131 sonucu m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2ldeki m\u00fclkiyetin i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, ger\u00e7ek sat\u0131\u015f yoluyla ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015flemin iptal edilerek ortada sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi yokmu\u015f gibi tapu kayd\u0131nda i\u015flem yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 oysa daval\u0131lar ile aralar\u0131nda tapuda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin iptaline karar verilmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f; Tirebolu il\u00e7esi \u00c7e\u011fel k\u00f6y\u00fcnde bulunan Nisan 2016 tarihli ve 14, 15, 16 numaralar\u0131nda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarla ilgili tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile kendisi ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. Daval\u0131 T.A.; D.A.n\u0131n kendisinin annesi oldu\u011funu ve vefat etti\u011fini, ba\u015fvurucunun 1975 y\u0131l\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131lan davada ikinci oturumda davay\u0131 kabul etti\u011fini, Mahkemece sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin a\u00e7\u0131k ve ba\u015fka bir yoruma gerek kalmayacak \u015fekilde iptal edildi\u011fini, an\u0131lan karar\u0131n 16\/6\/1976 tarihinde kesinle\u015fti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
10. Kadastro Mahkemesince yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015f, an\u0131lan karar daval\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. Yarg\u0131tay k\u0131sa karar ile gerek\u00e7eli karar aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131na karar vermi\u015ftir. Kadastro Mahkemesi bozma karar\u0131na uyarak yeniden yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 yarg\u0131lamada dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlarda ke\u015fif yapm\u0131\u015f, tan\u0131k dinlemi\u015f ve gerekli t\u00fcm delilleri toplad\u0131ktan sonra davan\u0131n reddi sonucuna varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
11. Kadastro Mahkemesi gerek\u00e7esinde sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2ldeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi i\u015fleminin iptal edilmesiyle sonraki sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin de dayanaks\u0131z kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle i\u015flemin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu, nitekim tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131ndan da t\u00fcm miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131n kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131yla usule uygun ve ge\u00e7erli bir taksim anla\u015fmas\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, somut beyanlarla ispatlanabilen bir sat\u0131\u015f ve ba\u011f\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Kadastro Mahkemesi sonu\u00e7 olarak dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ortak muristen intikal eden ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek T.A. ve D.A.n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hisselerini ger\u00e7ek ve ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f iradesiyle ba\u015fvurucuya satt\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair kanaat olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar ad\u0131na hisseleri oran\u0131nda tapuda kay\u0131t ve tesciline karar verildi\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
12. Kadastro Mahkemesi karar\u0131 temyiz ve karar d\u00fczeltme incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek 15\/4\/2019 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
13. Nihai karar 9\/7\/2019 tarihinde ba\u015fvurucuya tebli\u011f edilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvuru 5\/8\/2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucu C.A. 29\/6\/2023 tarihinde vefat etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirmek istediklerini 15\/11\/2024 tarihinde bildirmi\u015flerdir. Komisyon taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurunun kabul edilebilirlik ve esas incelemesinin B\u00f6l\u00fcm taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. DE\u011eERLEND\u0130RME<\/p>\n
14. Ba\u015fvurucu; Mahkemece 6\/4\/1976 tarihinde verilen kararda daval\u0131lar ile aralar\u0131ndaki resm\u00ee \u015fekilde sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funa dair h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2lde ortada sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi yokmu\u015f gibi tapu kayd\u0131nda i\u015flem yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 bedelini \u00f6deyerek sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapuda kendisi ad\u0131na tescil edilmemesinin usul ve kanuna ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu belirterek m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ve adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fc m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan \u015fik\u00e2yetleri m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
16. 30\/3\/2011 tarihli ve 6216 say\u0131l\u0131 Anayasa Mahkemesinin Kurulu\u015fu ve Yarg\u0131lama Usulleri Hakk\u0131nda Kanun\u2019un 48. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun ba\u015fvurular\u0131n Anayasa Mahkemesince kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilebilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu ba\u011flamda ba\u015fvurucunun ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, temel haklara y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalenin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya m\u00fcdahalenin me\u015fru oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131k olan ba\u015fvurular ile karma\u015f\u0131k veya zorlama \u015fik\u00e2yetlerden ibaret ba\u015fvurular a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun kabul edilebilir (Hikmet Balabano\u011flu [2. B.], B. No: 2012\/1334, 17\/9\/2013, \u00a7 24).<\/p>\n
17. Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesiyle g\u00fcvenceye ba\u011flanan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, ekonomik de\u011fer ifade eden ve parayla de\u011ferlendirilebilen her t\u00fcrl\u00fc mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 kapsamaktad\u0131r (AYM, E.2015\/39, K.2015\/62, 1\/7\/2015, \u00a7 20). M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131, maddi varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131n\u0131r ve ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kapsad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi maddi olmayan haklar\u0131 da i\u00e7ermektedir (AYM, E.2014\/177, K.2015\/49, 14\/5\/2015).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi ile ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na tapu kayd\u0131 olu\u015fturulmu\u015f, 30\/9\/1975 tarihli \u00fc\u00e7 tapu senedinde daval\u0131lara ait ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131\u015f yoluyla intikal etti\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvurucu ad\u0131na olu\u015fmu\u015f tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda m\u00fclk\u00fcn varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda teredd\u00fct bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; T.A. ve D.A. ile aralar\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, T.A. ve D.A.n\u0131n muristen kendilerine kalan ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki hisselerini bedeli kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek 1976 tarihli mahkeme karar\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmedi\u011finden ve m\u00fclkiyetin yaln\u0131zca m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyetten i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, kadastro tespitine itiraz davas\u0131nda an\u0131lan mahkeme karar\u0131na dayan\u0131larak sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin dayanaks\u0131z kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n belirtildi\u011finden \u015fik\u00e2yet etmektedir. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olayda ba\u015fvurucunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik olarak kamu makamlar\u0131nca do\u011frudan yap\u0131lan bir m\u00fcdahale mevcut olmay\u0131p \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131 bir uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k s\u00f6z konusudur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvuruda, devletin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
20. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n devlete birtak\u0131m pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler y\u00fckledi\u011fi hususu Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinin lafz\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde d\u00fczenlenmemi\u015f ise de bu g\u00fcvencenin sadece devlete atfedilebilen m\u00fcdahalelere y\u00f6nelik s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar getirdi\u011fi, bireyi \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerin m\u00fcdahalelerine kar\u015f\u0131 korumas\u0131z b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclemez. Pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131n nedeni ger\u00e7ek anlamda koruma sa\u011flanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re an\u0131lan maddede bir temel hak olarak g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekten ve etkili bir \u015fekilde korunabilmesi yaln\u0131zca devletin m\u00fcdahaleden ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Ger\u00e7ek anlamda koruma sa\u011flanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in devletin negatif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklerinin de olmas\u0131 gerekir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Anayasa’n\u0131n 5. ve 35. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca devletin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda s\u00f6z konusu pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckler, kimi durumlarda \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar da d\u00e2hil olmak \u00fczere m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in belirli tedbirlerin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye Emekliler Derne\u011fi [1. B.], B. No: 2012\/1035, 17\/7\/2014, \u00a7\u00a7 34-38; Eyy\u00fcp Boynukara [1. B.], B. No: 2013\/7842, 17\/2\/2016, \u00a7\u00a7 39-41; Osmano\u011flu \u0130n\u015faat E\u011fitim G\u0131da Temizlik Hizmetleri Petrol \u00dcr\u00fcnleri Sanayi Ticaret Limited \u015eirketi [2. B.], B. No: 2014\/8649, 15\/2\/2017, \u00a7 43).<\/p>\n
21. Devletin pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahalelere kar\u015f\u0131 usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri sunan yarg\u0131sal yollar\u0131 da i\u00e7eren etkili hukuksal bir \u00e7er\u00e7eve olu\u015fturma ve olu\u015fturulan bu hukuksal \u00e7er\u00e7eve kapsam\u0131nda yarg\u0131sal ve idari makamlar\u0131n bireylerin \u00f6zel ki\u015filerle olan uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda etkili ve adil bir karar vermesini temin etmek sorumluluklar\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7ermektedir (Selahattin Turan [1. B.], B. No: 2014\/11410, 22\/6\/2017, \u00a7 41).<\/p>\n
22. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in yarg\u0131 makamlar\u0131n\u0131n kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir (Kamil Darbaz ve GMO Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti. [2. B.], B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7 53).<\/p>\n
23. Mahkemece 6\/4\/1976 tarihinde dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na dayanak olarak g\u00f6sterilen i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi i\u015fleminin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu tespit edilerek m\u00fc\u015fterek h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin yeniden i\u015ftirak h\u00e2linde m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesine karar verildi\u011fi, tapuda belirtilen Eyl\u00fcl 1975 tarihli ve 165, 166, 167 numaral\u0131 tapulardaki intikal i\u015fleminin de iptal edildi\u011fi belirtilmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucunun 10\/4\/2007 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadastro tespitine itiraz davas\u0131 sonucunda Kadastro Mahkemesi 1976 y\u0131l\u0131nda verilen kararla dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kalmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle sat\u0131\u015fi\u015fleminin ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011funu de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f; T.A. ve D.A.n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz hisselerini ba\u015fvurucuya satma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde ger\u00e7ek ve ge\u00e7erli bir iradelerinin bulundu\u011funa kanaat getirmedi\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ortada ge\u00e7erli bir sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Sonu\u00e7 olarak davan\u0131n reddine, ayr\u0131ca ba\u011f\u0131\u015f i\u015flemi veya usul\u00fcne uygun bir taksim s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klayarak dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n miras\u00e7\u0131lar ad\u0131na hisseleri oran\u0131nda tapuya kaydedilmesine ve tescil edilmesine karar vermi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
24. Bu a\u015famada belirtmek gerekir ki delillerin de\u011ferlendirilmesi ve hukuk kurallar\u0131n\u0131n yorumlanmas\u0131 yetkisi kural olarak -keyf\u00ee olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 veya a\u00e7\u0131k ve bariz bir takdir hatas\u0131 i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece- mahkemelere aittir.<\/p>\n
25. Buna g\u00f6re ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131 dile getiremedi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik bir \u015fik\u00e2yetinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda ise ba\u015fvurucunun iddialar\u0131n\u0131n toplanan deliller do\u011frultusunda ilgili hukuk kurallar\u0131 yorumlanmak suretiyle de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda mahkeme kararlar\u0131nda bir keyf\u00eeli\u011fin veya bariz takdir hatas\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemeyecektir.<\/p>\n
26. \u00d6te yandan Kadastro Mahkemesinin gerek\u00e7eli karar\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucunun \u015fik\u00e2yetine dayanak te\u015fkil eden sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011finin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131larak de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi, an\u0131lan kararda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulundu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli olan usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
27. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131na\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kabul edilemez oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
Kenan YA\u015eAR bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fe kat\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmas\u0131 nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ OLDU\u011eUNA Kenan YA\u015eAR’\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131oyu ve OY\u00c7OKLU\u011eUYLA,<\/p>\n
B. Yarg\u0131lama giderlerinin ba\u015fvurucu \u00fczerinde BIRAKILMASINA 8\/1\/2025 tarihinde karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eIOY GEREK\u00c7ES\u0130<\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru; ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131lan i\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmesi i\u015fleminden dolay\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin dayanaks\u0131z kald\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. T.A. ve D.A., 30\/09\/1975 tarihinde, Tirebolu Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019ne tescil edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki miras hisselerini ba\u015fvuruculara satm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Ancak M.A., 26\/11\/1975 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 tapu iptal davas\u0131nda, sat\u0131\u015fa r\u0131za g\u00f6stermedi\u011fini ve m\u00fclkiyetin yanl\u0131\u015f bir \u015fekilde d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc belirterek, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin iptal edilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, b\u00fct\u00fcn miras\u00e7\u0131lardan r\u0131za al\u0131nmadan m\u00fclkiyetin d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayaca\u011f\u0131na karar vererek, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemlerini iptal etmi\u015ftir. Daha sonra, 2006 y\u0131l\u0131nda yap\u0131lan kadastro \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131 ile ilgili yeni tapu kay\u0131tlar\u0131 olu\u015fturulmu\u015f ve 2007 y\u0131l\u0131nda ba\u015fvurucu bu kay\u0131tlara itiraz etmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ger\u00e7ek sat\u0131\u015fla kendisine ge\u00e7ti\u011fini, ancak yap\u0131lan tapu iptal davas\u0131 sonucu i\u015flemlerin ge\u00e7ersiz say\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme, davan\u0131n sonunda, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vererek, tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n eski haline getirilmesine h\u00fckmetmi\u015ftir. Bu karar Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan bozulmu\u015f, ancak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada dava reddedilmi\u015ftir. Nihai karar 15\/04\/2019 tarihinde kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu, 29\/01\/2020 tarihinde ba\u015fvurusunu yapm\u0131\u015f, ancak ba\u015fvurucunun miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131, 15\/11\/2024 tarihinde ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirme karar\u0131 alm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Ba\u015fvurucunun di\u011fer hususlardaki taleplerine y\u00f6nelik mahkeme karar\u0131na kat\u0131lmakla birlikte Mahkememiz \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n konu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan yetkisizlik nedeniyle KABUL ED\u0130LEMEZ oldu\u011funa dair karar\u0131na a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvuru konusu olay\u0131n \u015fartlar\u0131 dahilinde mevcut bir m\u00fclk\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemez. Somut olayda 16\/6\/1976 tarihinde kesinle\u015fen yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n intikal i\u015fleminin iptali ile m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyetin i\u015ftirak halindeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin kadastro \u00f6ncesi miras hisselerini di\u011fer miras\u00e7\u0131lardan sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131, kadastro s\u0131ras\u0131nda bu sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmadan yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle kadastro tespitine itiraz davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Mahkemenin ise sat\u0131\u015f i\u015flemini dayanaktan yoksun kabul ederek davay\u0131 reddetti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Bu durumda kadastro \u00f6ncesi ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi ad\u0131na olu\u015fmu\u015f bir tapu kayd\u0131 bulunmaktad\u0131r. Kadastro neticesinde bu kay\u0131t yolsuz kabul edilerek (iptal edilerek) b\u00fct\u00fcn miras\u00e7\u0131lar ad\u0131na tescil i\u015flemi ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucular da tam da bu sebeple sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin yolsuz kabul edilerek yap\u0131lan yeni tescil i\u015fleminden yak\u0131nm\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisinin kadastro \u00f6ncesi ad\u0131na bir tapu kayd\u0131 bulundu\u011funa g\u00f6re m\u00fclk\u00fcn varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunda bir teredd\u00fct bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmektedir. Bu durumda ba\u015fvuru m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda incelenmeyi gerektirmektedir<\/p>\n
5. Kadastro tespitine itiraz davas\u0131nda miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131 yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan kadastro \u00f6ncesi olu\u015fturulan tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n dayana\u011f\u0131 olan sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n yolsuz kabul edilmesi bu ba\u015fvurunun konusunu olu\u015fturmaktad\u0131r. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden ba\u015fvurunun m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n pozitif y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri kapsam\u0131nda incelenmesi uygun g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir (L\u00fctfiye \u015een ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2015\/19590, 7\/3\/2019, \u00a7 42).<\/p>\n
6. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunabilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesi, Anayasa Mahkemesinin \u00e7e\u015fitli kararlar\u0131nda da ifade edildi\u011fi \u00fczere m\u00fclk sahibine m\u00fcdahalenin kanun d\u0131\u015f\u0131 veya keyf\u00ee ya da makul olmayan \u015fekilde uyguland\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin savunma ve itirazlar\u0131n\u0131 sorumlu makamlar \u00f6n\u00fcnde etkin bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya koyabilme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131 g\u00fcvencesini kapsamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
7. M\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvenceleri hem \u00f6zel ki\u015filer aras\u0131ndaki m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131nda hem de taraflardan birinin kamu g\u00fcc\u00fc oldu\u011fu durumlarda ge\u00e7erlidir. Bu ba\u011flamda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131n\u0131n s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu durumlarda usule ili\u015fkin g\u00fcvencelerin somut olayda yerine getirildi\u011finden s\u00f6z edilebilmesi i\u00e7in derece mahkemelerinin kararlar\u0131nda konu ile ilgili ve yeterli gerek\u00e7e bulunmal\u0131d\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca belirtmek gerekir ki bu zorunluluk davac\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn iddialar\u0131na cevap verilmesi anlam\u0131na gelmemekle birlikte m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ilgilendiren davan\u0131n sonucuna etkili esasa ili\u015fkin temel iddia ve itirazlar\u0131n yarg\u0131lama makamlar\u0131nca \u00f6zenli bir \u015fekilde de\u011ferlendirilerek kar\u015f\u0131lanmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. (Kamil Darbaz ve Gmo Yap\u0131 Grup End. San. Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2015\/12563, 24\/5\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 52-53).<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvurucular\u0131n murisi, ba\u015fvuru formunda, 1976’da kesinle\u015fen yarg\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n sadece m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyetten i\u015ftirak halindeki m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmle ilgili oldu\u011funu, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n iptalinin ise tapu m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn hatal\u0131 idari i\u015flemiyle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. Muris, mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n ge\u00e7ersiz kabul edilmesinin m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131 ihlal etti\u011fini savunmu\u015f ve miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda i\u015ftirak halindeki m\u00fclkiyette sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu iddialar, m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131yla do\u011frudan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
9. Ancak, ilk derece mahkemesi, i\u015ftirak halindeki m\u00fclkiyetin m\u00fc\u015fterek m\u00fclkiyete d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn iptaline karar verirken, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fi konusunda hukuki dayanaklar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130\u015ftirak halindeki m\u00fclkiyette miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair ba\u015fvurucunun itiraz\u0131na da yan\u0131t verilmemi\u015ftir. Temyiz s\u0131ras\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay Dairesi de bu iddialar\u0131 incelememi\u015ftir. Oysa 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 677. maddesi, yaz\u0131l\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile miras\u00e7\u0131lar aras\u0131nda miras pay\u0131 devrini m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
10. Kararl\u0131l\u0131k kazanm\u0131\u015f Yarg\u0131tay uygulamalar\u0131na g\u00f6re elbirli\u011fi ortaklar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki devir ve temlikler derhal hukuki sonu\u00e7 do\u011furacak nitelikte kabul edilmektedirler. Mahkemenin T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 677\/1.maddesi ile de olanakl\u0131 k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortak m\u00fclkiyet payda\u015flar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki sat\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131nda, ifa olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z ederek davan\u0131n reddine karar vermesinde isabet bulunmamaktad\u0131r (Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesi, E.2007\/455, 2007\/1233).<\/p>\n
11. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla eldeki ba\u015fvuruda yarg\u0131 kararlar\u0131nda m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131na ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n sonucuna dair ba\u015fvurucunun ayr\u0131 ve a\u00e7\u0131k yan\u0131t gerektiren s\u00f6z konusu iddia ve itirazlar\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ilgili ve yeterli bir gerek\u00e7e bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
12. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle ba\u015fvurucunun, Anayasa’n\u0131n 35. maddesinde d\u00fczenlenen m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi kanaati ile \u00e7o\u011funluk karar\u0131na i\u015ftirak edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00dcye<\/p>\n
\u00a0Kenan YA\u015eAR<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 8\/1\/2015 tarihli ve 2019\/27727 ba\u015fvuru numaral\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130 ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00d6. A. VE D\u0130\u011eERLER\u0130 BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2019\/27727) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 8\/1\/2025 \u0130K\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Basri BA\u011eCI \u00dcyeler : Y\u0131ld\u0131z SEFER\u0130NO\u011eLU \u00a0 \u00a0 Kenan YA\u015eAR \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00d6mer \u00c7INAR \u00a0 \u00a0 Metin KIRATLI Raport\u00f6r : C. Ece YALIM Ba\u015fvurucular : Vekili : Av. Kerim TOP\u00c7UO\u011eLU \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi nedeniyle m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Ba\u015fvuru devam ederken vefat eden C.A.n\u0131n yasal miras\u00e7\u0131lar\u0131 olan Pamuk Ate\u015f, Pamuk Turan, Nurg\u00fcl Ate\u015f, \u00d6mer Ate\u015f, Zatiye Ate\u015f, Emin Ate\u015f ba\u015fvuruyu devam ettirmek istediklerini beyan etmi\u015ftir. Yasal miras\u00e7\u0131 olan ba\u015fvurucular bireysel ba\u015fvurunun taraf\u0131 h\u00e2line gelmi\u015fse de anlat\u0131m kolayl\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan C.A. ba\u015fvurucu olarak nitelendirilecektir. 3. Ba\u015fvuru formu ve eklerinde ifade edildi\u011fi \u015fekliyle ilgili olaylar \u00f6zetle \u015f\u00f6yledir: 4. T.A.n\u0131n ve D.A.n\u0131n 30\/9\/1975 tarihinde Tirebolu Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn 1033 yevmiye numaras\u0131yla Nisan 1937 tarihli ve 66; Mart 1953 tarihli ve 225, 226; Nisan 1318 daim\u00ee tarihli ve 212 s\u0131ra numaralar\u0131nda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardaki miras hisseleri ba\u015fvurucuya sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 5. M.A. 26\/11\/1975 tarihinde Tirebolu Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) tasarrufun iptali davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. M.A. dava dilek\u00e7esinde, kendisi ile birlikte m\u00fc\u015fterek muris olan daval\u0131lar ba\u015fvurucu, D.A. …<\/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-80990","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n