T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2020\/12091 E., 2021\/2034 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki vasiyetnamenin iptali-tenkis-ipote\u011fin fekki davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lar vekilince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7indeki ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131lar; taraflar\u0131n murisi …’\u0131n 17.11.2008 tarihinde vefat etti\u011fini, 26.08.1994 tarihli noterde d\u00fczenledi\u011fi vasiyetnamesi ile t\u00fcm malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131lardan … ve …’a b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; murisin ruhsal rahats\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu (fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131), sakl\u0131 pay\u0131 zedeleme amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan vasiyetnamenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu; ayr\u0131ca, muvazaal\u0131 olarak 1. kat 2 nolu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm \u00fczerine daval\u0131 … lehine ipotek kuruldu\u011funu; vasiyetnamenin, daval\u0131lar\u0131n manevi bask\u0131s\u0131 ile d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek; vasiyetnamenin iptaline, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tenkisine, muvazaaya konu ipote\u011fin fekkine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131lar; zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre itiraz\u0131nda bulunmu\u015flar, esas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da davan\u0131n reddini dilemi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece; her ne kadar davac\u0131lar vekilince, murisin vasiyetnameyi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 zamanda akli melekelerinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek vasiyetnamenin iptali talep edilmi\u015f ise de; dosyada mevcut 03.03.2004 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunda, muris Haydar’\u0131n ate\u015fli silah bulundurmas\u0131 ya da ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131nda psikolojik ve n\u00f6rolojik y\u00f6nden herhangi bir sak\u0131nca bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131; dosyada bulunan tedavi evraklar\u0131n\u0131n psikolojik rahats\u0131zl\u0131klarla ilgisinin olmamas\u0131 ve bu hususta dinlenen t\u00fcm tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131ndan, 26.08.1994 tarihli vasiyetnamenin, ehliyetsizlik sebebiyle iptal edilmesini gerektirir bir durumun s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na kesin kanaat getirildi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle “Davac\u0131lar\u0131n, daval\u0131lar … ve …’a y\u00f6nelik, vasiyetnamenin iptaline ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak tapu iptali ve tescil y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki asli taleplerinin reddi; vasiyetnamenin tenkisi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki feri taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile; 31.218.01 TL’nin dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte, yukar\u0131da ad\u0131 ge\u00e7en daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsili ile davac\u0131lara m\u00fctesaviyen \u00f6denmesine; davac\u0131lar\u0131n, daval\u0131 …’a y\u00f6nelik, muvazaa nedeniyle ipote\u011fin fekki y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki taleplerinin reddine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fckm\u00fcn taraflar vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Dairemiz 15.04.2014 tarih ve 2013\/20927 esas, 2014\/6106 karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile \u201c…Davac\u0131lar vekili; vasiyet\u00e7inin, vasiyetname d\u00fczenledi\u011fi tarihte fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia etmi\u015f, vasiyetnamenin iptalini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
HUMK’un 275. ve devam\u0131 maddeleri gere\u011fince, \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fc \u00f6zel veya teknik bir bilgiyi gerektiren hallerde hakim, bilirki\u015finin oy ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn al\u0131nmas\u0131na karar vermelidir. Sonucu a\u00e7\u0131k ve belli durumlar ayr\u0131k olmak \u00fczere; vasiyet\u00e7inin vasiyetname tarihinde fiil ehliyetine sahip olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n saptanmas\u0131 da uzman bilirki\u015filer ve resmi sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulu raporu arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla yap\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Mahkeme gerek\u00e7esinde dayan\u0131lan 03.03.2004 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k raporu, vasiyetnamenin d\u00fczenleni\u015f tarihinden \u00e7ok sonras\u0131na ili\u015fkin bulundu\u011fu gibi, fiil ehliyetine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bir rapor da de\u011fildir. O halde mahkemece; davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n itiraz\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek, bu husustaki t\u00fcm deliller ve belgeler toplanarak (Hastane kay\u0131tlar\u0131 ve raporlar da eklenerek) bu konuda en yetkili sa\u011fl\u0131k kurulundan, Adli T\u0131p Kurumu Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, heyet raporu al\u0131nmas\u0131 ve sonucu dairesinde bir h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 gerekirken; eksik inceleme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde vasiyetnamenin iptali isteminin reddine ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Bu a\u015famada, bozma gerek\u00e7esi g\u00f6zetilerek, taraflar\u0131n tenkise ve sair temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine mahal g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esi ile bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece; bozma ilam\u0131na uyularak yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda; … Adli T\u0131p Kurumu 4. \u0130htisas Kurulunun raporuna g\u00f6re murisin i\u015flem tarihinde fiil ehliyetini haiz oldu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmakla vasiyetnamenin iptali a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan davac\u0131lar\u0131n davalar\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, tenkis talebine gelindi\u011finde ise, miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tamam\u0131na ili\u015fkin teker teker tespit yap\u0131larak al\u0131nan rapor do\u011frultusunda se\u00e7imlik tercih hakk\u0131 para olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve ipotek a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan muvazaa iddias\u0131 kan\u0131tlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul, k\u0131smen reddi ile; davac\u0131lar\u0131n, daval\u0131lar … ve …’a y\u00f6nelik vasiyetnamenin iptali ve iptale ba\u011fl\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescile y\u00f6nelik asli taleplerinin reddine, vasiyetnamenin tenkisi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki feri taleplerinin kabul\u00fc ile, 29.166,31 TL’nin dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131lardan m\u00fc\u015ftereken ve m\u00fcteselsilen tahsil edilerek davac\u0131lara \u00f6denmesine, davac\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 …’a y\u00f6nelik muvazaa nedeniyle ipote\u011fin fekki taleplerinin reddine karar verilmi\u015f, karar daval\u0131lar vekilince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Muris …\u2019\u0131n 17.11.2008 tarihinde vefat etti\u011fi, ….Noterli\u011fi’nin 26\/08\/1994 tarih ve 22236 yevmiye say\u0131l\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklindeki vasiyetnamesi ile t\u00fcm malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ikinci e\u015fi daval\u0131 …’tan olma \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 daval\u0131lar … (1\/3) ve …’a (2\/3) vasiyet etti\u011fi; davac\u0131lar … ve …\u2019\u0131n da murisin ilk e\u015finden olma \u00e7ocuklar\u0131 olduklar\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Miras\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve miras\u0131n ge\u00e7i\u015fi, miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan h\u00fck\u00fcmlere g\u00f6re belirlenir. (4722 S.K. md.17)
\nTMK.’n\u0131n 516\/2. maddesine g\u00f6re, bir kimsenin miras\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 ya da belirli bir oran\u0131n\u0131 almas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren her tasarruf miras\u00e7\u0131 atamas\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131r. Miras\u00e7\u0131 atamas\u0131 3. ki\u015filer lehine yap\u0131labilece\u011fi gibi yasal miras\u00e7\u0131lar lehine de yap\u0131labilir. Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta ise muris, terekesinin tamam\u0131n\u0131 belirli oranlarla daval\u0131lar …’e b\u0131rakarak, miras\u00e7\u0131 atamas\u0131 yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Tenkis davas\u0131, TMK’n\u0131n 560-562 maddelerinde d\u00fczenlenen, mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131n sakl\u0131 paylar\u0131 zedeleyen gerek \u00f6l\u00fcme ba\u011fl\u0131 ve gerekse sa\u011flararas\u0131 kazand\u0131rmalar\u0131n\u0131n kural olarak sakl\u0131 paylar\u0131n\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 alamayan miras\u00e7\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan mirasb\u0131rakan\u0131n tasarruf edebilece\u011fi s\u0131n\u0131ra \u00e7ekilmesini ama\u00e7layan, \u00f6ncesine etkili, yenilik do\u011furucu davalardand\u0131r. Bu y\u00f6n\u00fcyle bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tenkis davas\u0131 Miras Hukukuna \u00f6zg\u00fc bir iptal davas\u0131 olarak kabul edilmelidir. (G.Antalya, Miras Hukuku, \u0130stanbul, 2003, s.305). Tenkis, a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z sebeplerle sakl\u0131 pay\u0131n yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131d\u0131r (H.Hatemi, Miras Hukuku, \u0130stanbul, 2004, s.23).<\/p>\n
Dava; yukar\u0131da yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar kapsam\u0131nda, belirli mal vasiyetinin de\u011fil, miras\u00e7\u0131 atanmas\u0131yla (nasb\u0131) ilgili tasarrufun tenkisi iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.
\nTMK’n\u0131n 564. maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cDe\u011ferinde azalma meydana gelmeksizin b\u00f6l\u00fcnmesine olanak bulunmayan belirli bir mal vasiyeti tenkise tabi olursa, vasiyet alacakl\u0131s\u0131, dilerse tenkisi gereken k\u0131sm\u0131n de\u011ferini \u00f6deyerek mal\u0131n verilmesini, dilerse tasarruf edilebilir k\u0131sm\u0131n de\u011ferini kar\u015f\u0131layan paray\u0131 isteyebilece\u011fi\u201d 2. f\u0131krada ise, \u201cTasarruf oran\u0131 i\u00e7inde kalan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131n karar g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki de\u011ferinin para olarak \u00f6detilmesine karar verilece\u011fi\u201d a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Belirli mal vasiyeti ile miras\u00e7\u0131 atanmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren vasiyetnamelerin s\u00f6z konusu olmas\u0131 halinde tenkis hesab\u0131 birbirinden farkl\u0131d\u0131r. Davaya konu 26.08.1994 tarihli vasiyetname miras\u00e7\u0131 atamas\u0131na ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fundan ve T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun 564. maddesi ancak belirli mal vasiyeti s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda uygulanabilece\u011finden miras\u00e7\u0131 atamas\u0131 (nasb\u0131) halinde bu maddenin uygulanmas\u0131 olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Miras\u00e7\u0131 olarak atanan ki\u015fi, murisin k\u00fclli halefi oldu\u011fundan, miras a\u00e7\u0131lmakla yasal miras\u00e7\u0131 gibi terekenin t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da belli bir pay\u0131n\u0131n sahibi olur (TMK 599\/2). Miras\u00e7\u0131 olarak atanan kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan tenkis davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc halinde davac\u0131lar\u0131n sakl\u0131 paylar\u0131 oran\u0131nda tenkise karar vermek yeterlidir.(2. HD.\u2019nin 18.5.1995 tarihli, 4699-5842 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131, 2. HD.\u2019nin 13.06.2007 tarihli, 2006\/16512-2007\/10134 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ).<\/p>\n
\u00d6yleyse; mahkemece miras\u00e7\u0131 olarak atanan kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan tenkis davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc halinde davac\u0131lar\u0131n sakl\u0131 paylar\u0131 oran\u0131nda tenkise karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle h\u00fckm\u00fcn HUMK’un 428. maddesi gere\u011fince daval\u0131lar yarar\u0131na BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’n\u0131n ge\u00e7ici madde 3 atf\u0131yla 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 HUMK’un 440. maddesi gere\u011fince karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 15 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere, 01\/03\/2021 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
2. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2006\/16512 E., 2007\/10134 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Kad\u0131k\u00f6y 5. A.H.
\nTAR\u0130H\u0130 : 23.03.2006
\nNUMARASI :498-85
\nDAVA T\u00dcR\u00dc :Tenkis<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki davan\u0131n yap\u0131lan muhakemesi sonunda mahalli mahkemece verilen ve yukar\u0131da tarih numaras\u0131 g\u00f6sterilen h\u00fck\u00fcm temyiz edilmekle evrak okunup gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc.<\/p>\n
Miras\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k ve miras\u0131n ge\u00e7i\u015fi, miras b\u0131rakan\u0131n \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan h\u00fck\u00fcmlere g\u00f6re belirlenir. (4722 S.K. md.17)
\n1.10.1993 tarihli vasiyetname; miras\u00e7\u0131 nasb\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.(TKM. 463) T\u00fcrk Kanunu Medenisinin 506. maddesi ancak muayyen mal vasiyeti s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda uygulanabilir. Miras\u00e7\u0131 nasb\u0131 halinde bu maddenin uygulanmas\u0131 olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Miras\u00e7\u0131 nasbedilen kimse, murisin k\u00fclli halefi oldu\u011fundan, miras a\u00e7\u0131lmakla yasal miras\u00e7\u0131 gibi terekenin t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn ya da belli bir pay\u0131n\u0131n sahibi olur.(TKM. 539\/2) Miras\u00e7\u0131 nasbedilen kimseye kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan tenkis davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc halinde davac\u0131lar\u0131n sakl\u0131 paylar\u0131 oran\u0131nda tenkise karar vermek yeterlidir.(2. HD.\u2019nin 18.5.1995 tarihli 4699-5842 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131) Bu husus g\u00f6zetilmeden yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: H\u00fckm\u00fcn yukar\u0131da g\u00f6sterilen sebeple BOZULMASINA, bozma sebebine g\u00f6re daval\u0131n\u0131n temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesine yer olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na, temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine, i\u015fbu karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren 15 g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi. 13.06.2007 \u00e7r\u015f.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 01\/03\/2021 tarihli, 2020\/12091 E., 2021\/2034 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi 2020\/12091 E., 2021\/2034 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki vasiyetnamenin iptali-tenkis-ipote\u011fin fekki davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131lar vekilince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7indeki ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc. Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I Davac\u0131lar; taraflar\u0131n murisi …’\u0131n 17.11.2008 tarihinde vefat etti\u011fini, 26.08.1994 tarihli noterde d\u00fczenledi\u011fi vasiyetnamesi ile t\u00fcm malvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131lardan … ve …’a b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131; murisin ruhsal rahats\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011funu (fiil ehliyetinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131), sakl\u0131 pay\u0131 zedeleme amac\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan vasiyetnamenin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu; ayr\u0131ca, muvazaal\u0131 olarak 1. kat 2 nolu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm \u00fczerine daval\u0131 … lehine ipotek kuruldu\u011funu; vasiyetnamenin, daval\u0131lar\u0131n manevi bask\u0131s\u0131 ile d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek; vasiyetnamenin iptaline, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tenkisine, muvazaaya konu ipote\u011fin fekkine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131lar; zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcre itiraz\u0131nda bulunmu\u015flar, esas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da davan\u0131n reddini dilemi\u015flerdir. Mahkemece; her ne kadar davac\u0131lar vekilince, murisin vasiyetnameyi yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 zamanda akli melekelerinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclerek vasiyetnamenin iptali talep edilmi\u015f ise de; dosyada mevcut 03.03.2004 tarihli sa\u011fl\u0131k raporunda, muris Haydar’\u0131n ate\u015fli silah bulundurmas\u0131 ya da ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131nda psikolojik ve n\u00f6rolojik y\u00f6nden herhangi bir sak\u0131nca bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespit edilmi\u015f olmas\u0131; dosyada bulunan tedavi …<\/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-97211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n