T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2017\/1038 E., 2021\/458 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Aile Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201cziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n aynen iadesi, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde bedelinin tahsili\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, … 12. Aile Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:
\n4. Davac\u0131 vekili bo\u015fanma talebini de i\u00e7eren daha sonra ziynet talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tefrik edilen dava dilek\u00e7esinde; taraflara d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan 200 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, 6 adet tam alt\u0131n, 3 adet yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 19 adet 20’\u015fer gram 22 ayar alt\u0131n bilezik ile 1 adet 14 ayar 13 gram alt\u0131n bilezikten olu\u015fan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle aynen iadesine, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u00f6deme g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlerinin daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
\n5. Daval\u0131 vekili; talep edilen miktarda ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, toplamda 150 civar\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck alt\u0131n ve muhtelif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerde bilezik tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak \u00f6rf ve adetlere g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan t\u00fcm tak\u0131lar\u0131n erkek taraf\u0131na ait oldu\u011funu savunarak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
\n6. … 12. Aile Mahkemesinin 10.11.2014 tarihli ve 2013\/241 E., 2014\/732 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; davaya konu ziynetlerin daval\u0131 yan uhdesinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile birlikte d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerdeki tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona ait olaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin geleneklerinden bahseden daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve taraflara tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131 g\u00f6sterir bilirki\u015fi raporu benimsenerek sadece kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lamayan daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, ispatland\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lan 31 \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, 22 ayar 11 adet bilezik, 22 ayar 1 adet bilezik, 1 adet 14 ayar fantezi bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
\n7. Yerel Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz isteminde bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 27.01.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/2539 E., 2016\/842 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;
\n\u201c\u2026Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle kanuni gerektirici sebeplere ve \u00f6zellikle delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 vekilinin t\u00fcm temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan incelemede ise;
\nDava; d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n aynen iadesi; bunun m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 halinde de\u011ferinin nakden tahsili istemine ili\u015fkindir.
\nKural olarak, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131, kim taraf\u0131ndan, kime tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n, kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k kad\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131r.
\nT\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 6.maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca; Kanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Gerek doktrinde, gerek Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda kabul edildi\u011fi \u00fczere ispat y\u00fck\u00fc, hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 durumu iddia eden ya da savunmada bulunan kimseye d\u00fc\u015fer.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda; taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerinde, daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik, 3 adet yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 2 adet tam alt\u0131n, 80 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek, sadece, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde kad\u0131na tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi; talep olunan 5 adet alt\u0131n bilezi\u011fin ise, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 anne …’ nin(bilezikleri d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerde davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fcm) beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011fi kabul edilerek, bu talep y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise ispatlanamayan davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Oysa, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 annenin beyan\u0131; dava konusu 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin ispat\u0131na yeterli de\u011fildir.
\nMahkemece yap\u0131lacak i\u015f; d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde taraflara tak\u0131l\u0131p da davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011fi ispatlanamayan, daval\u0131ya da tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar ve 5 adet burma bilezik de dahil alt\u0131nlar hakk\u0131nda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermekten ibarettir. Yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme sonucu yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131:
\n9. Mahkemenin 30.05.2016 tarihli ve 2016\/234 E., 2016\/388 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 elinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek tekrar davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn daval\u0131da oldu\u011fundan bahisle k\u0131smen kabul karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi, bu karar verilirken daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131ya, davac\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n ise davac\u0131ya ait ki\u015fisel mal oldu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fi, sadece daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 13 gram 22 ayar 1 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bu tak\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f amac\u0131 ve niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re erkek taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131labilecek tak\u0131lardan olmamas\u0131 nedeni ile davan\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fi, \u00d6zel Dairenin ise d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f ve onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle bozma karar\u0131 verdi\u011fi, bu bozma gerek\u00e7esinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zira tan\u0131k …\u2019n\u0131n yeminli ifadesinde bu t\u00fcr tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131l\u0131r ise onun say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na dair adetleri oldu\u011funu beyan etti\u011fi, daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunda da foto\u011fraf ve CD incelenerek a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirlendi\u011fi \u00fczere ziynet-yar\u0131m-\u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, para ve bir adet 13 gram 22 ayar bilezikten ibaret oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131 kad\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n zaten \u00f6nceki kararda kabul edildi\u011fi, di\u011fer ziynet-yar\u0131m-\u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n ise nitelikleri ve kullan\u0131m ama\u00e7lar\u0131 gere\u011fi yat\u0131r\u0131m arac\u0131 olduklar\u0131, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde erkeklerin de alt\u0131n g\u00fcnleri yapmaya ba\u015flad\u0131klar\u0131, bankalarda alt\u0131n hesab\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131, bu t\u00fcr de\u011ferli metallerin tasarruf amac\u0131 ve arac\u0131 olarak s\u00fcrekli al\u0131n\u0131p sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, para biriktirildi\u011finde bu nitelikte de\u011ferli metallerin herkes\u00e7e edinildi\u011finin bir ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011fu, kald\u0131 ki \u00d6zel Dairenin bu tak\u0131lar\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etti\u011fi, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131n, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flayan ki\u015finin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesini ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanana tevdi etmesi ve ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan\u0131n da bu ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131 kabul edilmesi ile sonu\u00e7lanan bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fu, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda davac\u0131ya ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesini g\u00f6sterip ona tak\u0131 takma serbestisi var iken h\u00e2len yat\u0131r\u0131m amac\u0131 ve arac\u0131 niteli\u011finde olan belirtilen tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, bu tak\u0131lar\u0131 takanlar\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesinin davac\u0131ya de\u011fil daval\u0131ya y\u00f6neltildi\u011fi ve onun da kabul etmesi ile art\u0131k daval\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatinin has\u0131l oldu\u011fu, asl\u0131nda bu nitelikteki tak\u0131lar\u0131n edinilmi\u015f mal oldu\u011fu hususunun da uygulamada tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaya ba\u015flanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ancak davac\u0131 yan\u0131n bu y\u00f6nde bir talebinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine be\u015f adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden daval\u0131n\u0131n annesi de olsa tan\u0131k …\u2019nin bu bilezikleri davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yeminli olarak ifade etti\u011fi, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n do\u011fru s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin somut belirti olmaz ise as\u0131l olan\u0131n yeminli tan\u0131klar\u0131n do\u011fruyu s\u00f6ylediklerinin kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fi, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n salt daval\u0131n\u0131n annesi olmas\u0131n\u0131n onun do\u011fruyu s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fini kabule yetmeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
\n10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK<\/p>\n
11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k;<\/p>\n
a) D\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndeki tak\u0131lar\u0131n tak\u0131lan ki\u015fiye ait olaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin gelenekleri bulundu\u011funa dair tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 olan eldeki davada, kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f amac\u0131 ve niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re erkek taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lamayacaklar hari\u00e7 olmak \u00fczere d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n erke\u011fin ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
b) Yerel Mahkemece verilen ilk kararda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde davac\u0131ya tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 benimsenen 5 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden talep reddedilmi\u015f ve davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bu husus temyize konu edilmemi\u015f olmakla birlikte, \u00d6zel Dairece davac\u0131 lehine bozma nedeni yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131n\u0131n kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali mahiyetinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflarca ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemesi nedeniyle bu hususun re\u2019sen nazara al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131, re\u2019sen dikkate al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lacak olursa d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde davac\u0131 kad\u0131na tak\u0131lan ve saklanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kendisine teslim edilen 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fi davac\u0131ya iade etti\u011fine ve akabinde birka\u00e7 sefer davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenen daval\u0131n\u0131n annesinin yeminli beyan\u0131na itibar edilip edilemeyece\u011fi, buradan var\u0131lacak sonu\u00e7lara g\u00f6re daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar ve 5 adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktalar\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
12. Yerel Mahkeme ile \u00d6zel Daire aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ispat hukuku y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ge\u00e7erli kurallara de\u011finmekte yarar vard\u0131r:<\/p>\n
13. Dava konusu edilen bir hakk\u0131n ve buna kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan savunman\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 vak\u0131alar\u0131n (olgular\u0131n) var olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda mahkemeye kanaat verilmesi i\u015flemine ispat denir.<\/p>\n
14. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) 187\/1. maddesi;
\n\u201c\u0130spat\u0131n konusunu taraflar\u0131n \u00fczerinde anla\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etkili olabilecek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alar olu\u015fturur ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir.\u201d \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Vak\u0131a (olgu) ise, 03.03.2017 tarihli ve 2015\/2 E., 2017\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; kendisine hukuki sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olaylar \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spat\u0131 gereken olaylar, olumlu vak\u0131alar olabilece\u011fi gibi olumsuz vak\u0131alar da olabilir.<\/p>\n
16. Di\u011fer taraftan h\u00e2kim, taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olan vak\u0131alar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini, kural olarak kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131ramaz. Bir olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini taraflar ispat etmelidir. Bir davada ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn hangi tarafa ait olaca\u011f\u0131 hususu ise HMK\u2019n\u0131n \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 190. maddesinde yer almakta olup;
\n\u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir.
\nKanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini olu\u015fturan vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen istisnalar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir.\u201d \u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 6. maddesinde yer alan: \u201cKanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.” ifadesine paralel olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Nitekim, Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 10.11.2020 tarihli ve 2017\/3-1509 E., 2020\/863 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 hususlara de\u011finilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Eldeki davada, davac\u0131 d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n kendisine ait oldu\u011funu ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a verilmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f; daval\u0131 ise yerel \u00f6rf ve adetleri gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n erkek taraf\u0131na ait oldu\u011funu o nedenle davac\u0131ya verilmedi\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a iddia edilen \u00f6rf ve adetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin dinletilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131na itibar edilerek kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc olanlar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynetlerin kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona ait oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130htilaf d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n taraflardan hangisine ait oldu\u011fu noktas\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Mevzuat\u0131m\u0131zda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet ile parasal de\u011feri olan b\u00fct\u00fcn e\u015fyan\u0131n aidiyeti konusunda yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenledir ki, \u00f6rf ve adet hukuku uygulanmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yerle\u015fik uygulamas\u0131na, yayg\u0131n \u00f6rf ve adet ile \u00fclke ger\u00e7eklerine g\u00f6re kural olarak, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131 ve paralar kim taraf\u0131ndan ve hangi e\u015fe tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n aksine bir anla\u015fma ya da \u00f6rf ve adet kural\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k kad\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 kabul edilir. Yani erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan ziynetler ve paralar\u0131n da aksi kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcddet\u00e7e kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu kabul\u00fc vard\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n (alt\u0131n vs.) evlenme sebebiyle gerek ailelerce ve gerek yak\u0131nlarca kad\u0131na gelece\u011finin g\u00fcvencesi olarak tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edildi\u011finden emaneten (ge\u00e7ici olarak) tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda kad\u0131n\u0131n bir kabul\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece genel kural kabul edilecektir. Art\u0131k, ziynetlerin geri istenmemek \u00fczere verildi\u011fi iddia ve ispat edilmedik\u00e7e, bunlar\u0131 alan iade etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
22. \u0130spat k\u00fclfetinin hangi tarafta oldu\u011fu hususunun, yukar\u0131da bahsedilen hukuki d\u00fczenleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gerekmektedir. Daval\u0131 genel kural\u0131n aksine \u00f6rf ve adetleri bulundu\u011funu iddia etti\u011fine g\u00f6re bunu ispat k\u00fclfeti kendisine d\u00fc\u015fmektedir. Daval\u0131 ispat amac\u0131yla muhtar olan tan\u0131k …\u2019\u0131 dinletmi\u015f; tan\u0131k iddia edilenden farkl\u0131 olarak \u201cbizim adetlerimiz d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar, k\u0131za tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa k\u0131z\u0131n, o\u011flana tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa o\u011flan\u0131n olur\u201d \u015feklinde ifade vermi\u015f; mahkemece tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 esas al\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
23. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde \u00f6rf ve adetleri bulundu\u011funu belirten daval\u0131n\u0131n, dinletti\u011fi tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n yerle\u015fik uygulamas\u0131na yans\u0131yan yayg\u0131n \u00f6rf ve adet kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daha k\u00f6kl\u00fc bir adetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu durumda genel kuraldan ayr\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek bir durum s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
24. Ne var ki, mahkemece dinlenilen daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 …\u2019nin beyan\u0131na itibar edilerek 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin kabul\u00fc ile bu 5 bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, mahkemece kurulan 10.11.2014 tarihli ve 2013\/241 E., 2014\/732 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karara davac\u0131n\u0131n 5 adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden itiraz etmemesi nedeniyle bu husus daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden usul\u00fc kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak te\u015fkil eder. Bu nedenle taraflarca getirilme ilkesine tabi bulunan ve davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a temyize getirilmedi\u011finden bu y\u00f6ndeki ret karar\u0131 kesinle\u015fen 5 adet burma bilezik hakk\u0131ndaki direnme karar\u0131 isabetli olmakla birlikte, yukar\u0131daki a\u00e7\u0131klamalar gere\u011fince, di\u011fer ziynetler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan direnme karar\u0131 Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan isabetli bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Ayr\u0131ca, somut olayda daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131n\u0131n talebi mahkemece kabul edildi\u011finden \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131nda yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar dosya kapsam\u0131 ile \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmemektedir. Bu durumda, \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131n\u0131n 1. bendindeki \u201c1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik\u201d ifadesinin bozma karar\u0131nda yer almas\u0131n\u0131n isabetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, karardan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn masraflar\u0131na katk\u0131 mahiyetinde oldu\u011fu ve kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona hediye verilmesi gayesi g\u00fcd\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, tak\u0131lan t\u00fcm ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanmas\u0131n\u0131n ama\u00e7lanamayaca\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funca benimsenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
27. Sonu\u00e7 itibariyle, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uymak gerekirken \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. SONU\u00c7 :<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
\nDavac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile, Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 27.01.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/2539 E., 2016\/842 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131n\u0131n 1. bendindeki \u201c1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik\u201d ifadesinin bozma karar\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesine g\u00f6re uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,
\nAyn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 440. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 13.04.2021 tarihinde oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eI OY<\/p>\n
Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6renin \u00f6rf ve adetine g\u00f6re erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki daval\u0131 savunmas\u0131n\u0131n kan\u0131tlan\u0131p kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buna g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde erke\u011fe hediye olarak tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n, daval\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fi erke\u011fe verilmi\u015f kabul edilip edilmeyece\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 erkek; y\u00f6renin \u00f6rf ve adetine g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011funu savunmu\u015f, davac\u0131 kad\u0131n ise, \u00f6rf ve adete g\u00f6re ev e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 erkek taraf\u0131n\u0131n almas\u0131 h\u00e2linde tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, oysa taraflar\u0131n ev e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 kendilerinin ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Bu noktada; ziynet kavram\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet kurallar\u0131 ile davada ispat kuralar\u0131na ili\u015fkin yasal d\u00fczenlemelere bakmak gerekir.<\/p>\n
Ziynet; alt\u0131n, g\u00fcm\u00fc\u015f gibi k\u0131ymetli madenlerden yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup; insanlar taraf\u0131ndan tak\u0131lan s\u00fcs e\u015fyas\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r (Y\u0131lmaz, E.: Hukuk S\u00f6zl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, … 2011, s. 1529). Ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131 da, evlilik m\u00fcnasebetiyle gelin ve damada verilen hediyeler olarak nitelendirmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.
\nKad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131; bilezik, alt\u0131n kelep\u00e7e, kolye, gerdanl\u0131k, tak\u0131 seti, bileklik, saat, k\u00fcpe ve y\u00fcz\u00fck gibi tak\u0131lar olarak kabul edilmektedir (Sa\u011f\u0131ro\u011flu, M.\u015e: Ziynet davalar\u0131, …, 2013, s.3).<\/p>\n
Kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131; e\u015fler aras\u0131nda bir anla\u015fma yoksa veya bu konuda \u00f6rf ve adet bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a evlilik s\u0131ras\u0131nda kim taraf\u0131ndan hangi e\u015fe tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olursa olsun kad\u0131n e\u015fe ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 niteli\u011fini kazan\u0131r (HGK\u2019n\u0131n 05.05.2004 tarih, 2004\/4-249 E, 2004\/247 K, 04.03.2020 tarih, 2017\/3-1040 E, 2020\/240 K).<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun (TMK) 1\/1 maddesindeki; \u201cKanunda uygulanabilir bir h\u00fck\u00fcm yoksa, hakim , \u00f6rf ve adet hukukuna g\u00f6re, bu da yoksa kendisi kanun koyucu olsayd\u0131 nas\u0131l bir kural koyacak idiyse ona g\u00f6re karar verir.\u201d d\u00fczenlemesi gere\u011fi h\u00e2kim kanunda h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmayan h\u00e2llerde \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fince karar verme yetkisine sahiptir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6rf ve adet kurallar\u0131; belli bir olay ve ili\u015fkilerde toplumun bireylerince belli bir bi\u00e7imdeki davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n tekrarlanmas\u0131 ile yava\u015f yava\u015f organizman\u0131n geli\u015fmesi gibi meydana gelir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bir \u00f6rf ve adet kural\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre uygulanmas\u0131 (maddi unsur) bu kurala uyma konusunda toplumda bir inanc\u0131n (psikolojik unsur) yerle\u015fmesi ve kurala uyulmamas\u0131 durumunda bir yapt\u0131r\u0131m ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 konusunda bir kabul\u00fcn olmas\u0131 ( hukuki unsur) gerekir.<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) 6. maddesi:
\n\u201cKanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u201d
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu (HMK)\u2019nun \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan 190. maddesi:<\/p>\n
\u201c(1) \u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir.<\/p>\n
(2) Kanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini olu\u015fturan vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen istisnalar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.<\/p>\n
HMK\u2019n\u0131n 190. maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin temel kural vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, bir vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan taraf ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131yacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130spat\u0131n konusu, taraflar\u0131n \u00fczerinde anla\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131 ve bu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etkili olabilecek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alard\u0131r ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir.
\nVak\u0131a (olgu) ise, 03.03.2017 tarihli ve 2015\/2 E. ve 2017\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; kendisine hukuki sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olaylar \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spat\u0131 gereken olaylar, olumlu vak\u0131alar olabilece\u011fi gibi olumsuz vak\u0131alar da olabilir.<\/p>\n
Bir davada o davan\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc etkileyebilecek vak\u0131alar i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir ve ancak bu deliller inceleme konusu olabilir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle, delil, bir vak\u0131an\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurulan vas\u0131talard\u0131r ve konusu da maddi hukuktur.<\/p>\n
\u00d6ncelikle d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet ve alt\u0131nlar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve miktar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti gerekir.<\/p>\n
D\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde taraflara tak\u0131lan bilezikler ile alt\u0131nlar\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131 adet foto\u011fraf ve CD \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu d\u00fczenlenen as\u0131l ve ek raporlar ve tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re, mahkemece, davac\u0131 kad\u0131n \u00fczerinde 5 adet 22 ayar, her biri 22 gram … burmas\u0131, 11 adet 22 ayar her biri 15 gram civar\u0131nda tak\u0131 bilezi\u011fi, 1 adet 14 ayar 10 gram fantezi bilezik ile 31 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, daval\u0131 erkek \u00fczerinde ise, 1 adet 13 gram 22 ayar bilezik, 2 adet ziynet alt\u0131n, 3 yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 80 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, erkek \u00fczerine tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilen 1 adet bilezik daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu ayr\u0131ca 5 … burma bilezi\u011fin de davac\u0131da kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyizinde davac\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yeterli ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, mahkemece davac\u0131da kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen 5 … burma bilezi\u011fi temyiz konusu yapmam\u0131\u015f, daval\u0131 da temyizinde, k\u00f6y muhtar\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 ile y\u00f6resel \u00f6rf ve \u00e2detin belirlendi\u011fini, buna g\u00f6re \u00fczerinde tespit edilen alt\u0131nlar\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan talep edilmesinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u00fczerinde 15 \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n tespit edilmesine ra\u011fmen, 31 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131ya iadesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki karar\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek temyiz etmi\u015f, daval\u0131 erkek \u00fczerinde tespit edilen 1 adet 22 ayar, 13 gram bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131ya iadesini temyiz konusu yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
\nBu durumda; mahkemenin, ilk karar\u0131nda, 5 adet bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131da bulundu\u011fu, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet bilezi\u011fin de davac\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kabul\u00fc taraflarca temyiz konusu yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Dairenin bu y\u00f6ndeki bozmas\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Belirtilen yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ve t\u00fcm deliller birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; taraflar\u0131n ayn\u0131 k\u00f6yl\u00fc oldu\u011fu ve d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerinin k\u00f6yde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, CD ve foto\u011fraflarda taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcnde kad\u0131n ve erke\u011fe ayr\u0131 ku\u015fak tak\u0131larak tak\u0131lar\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve 9 y\u0131l k\u00f6y muhtarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yapan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n, \u201cadetlere g\u00f6re, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde k\u0131za tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n k\u0131za, erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu\u201d beyan\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, y\u00f6resel \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde daval\u0131 erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu kan\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f bulundu\u011fundan, mahkemenin direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde oldu\u011fu, karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde oldu\u011fumuzdan, say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun aksi y\u00f6ndeki bozma karar\u0131na kat\u0131l\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u200bT.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
Hukuk Genel Kurulu<\/p>\n
2017\/1038 E., 2021\/458 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Aile Mahkemesi<\/p>\n
1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201cziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n aynen iadesi, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde bedelinin tahsili\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, … 12. Aile Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:
\n4. Davac\u0131 vekili bo\u015fanma talebini de i\u00e7eren daha sonra ziynet talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tefrik edilen dava dilek\u00e7esinde; taraflara d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan 200 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, 6 adet tam alt\u0131n, 3 adet yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 19 adet 20’\u015fer gram 22 ayar alt\u0131n bilezik ile 1 adet 14 ayar 13 gram alt\u0131n bilezikten olu\u015fan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle aynen iadesine, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u00f6deme g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlerinin daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:
\n5. Daval\u0131 vekili; talep edilen miktarda ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, toplamda 150 civar\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck alt\u0131n ve muhtelif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerde bilezik tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak \u00f6rf ve adetlere g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan t\u00fcm tak\u0131lar\u0131n erkek taraf\u0131na ait oldu\u011funu savunarak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131:
\n6. … 12. Aile Mahkemesinin 10.11.2014 tarihli ve 2013\/241 E., 2014\/732 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; davaya konu ziynetlerin daval\u0131 yan uhdesinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile birlikte d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerdeki tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona ait olaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin geleneklerinden bahseden daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve taraflara tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131 g\u00f6sterir bilirki\u015fi raporu benimsenerek sadece kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lamayan daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, ispatland\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanaatine var\u0131lan 31 \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, 22 ayar 11 adet bilezik, 22 ayar 1 adet bilezik, 1 adet 14 ayar fantezi bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6zel Daire Bozma Karar\u0131:
\n7. Yerel Mahkemenin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz isteminde bulunulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
8. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 27.01.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/2539 E., 2016\/842 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;
\n\u201c\u2026Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 delillerle kanuni gerektirici sebeplere ve \u00f6zellikle delillerin takdirinde bir isabetsizlik g\u00f6r\u00fclmemesine g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 vekilinin t\u00fcm temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan incelemede ise;
\nDava; d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n aynen iadesi; bunun m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 halinde de\u011ferinin nakden tahsili istemine ili\u015fkindir.
\nKural olarak, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131, kim taraf\u0131ndan, kime tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n, kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k kad\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131r.
\nT\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun 6.maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc uyar\u0131nca; Kanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Gerek doktrinde, gerek Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda kabul edildi\u011fi \u00fczere ispat y\u00fck\u00fc, hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 durumu iddia eden ya da savunmada bulunan kimseye d\u00fc\u015fer.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda; taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerinde, daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik, 3 adet yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 2 adet tam alt\u0131n, 80 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek, sadece, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde kad\u0131na tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden kabul karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi; talep olunan 5 adet alt\u0131n bilezi\u011fin ise, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 anne …’ nin(bilezikleri d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerde davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fcm) beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011fi kabul edilerek, bu talep y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ise ispatlanamayan davan\u0131n reddine karar verildi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Oysa, daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 annenin beyan\u0131; dava konusu 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fin daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin ispat\u0131na yeterli de\u011fildir.
\nMahkemece yap\u0131lacak i\u015f; d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde taraflara tak\u0131l\u0131p da davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011fi ispatlanamayan, daval\u0131ya da tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar ve 5 adet burma bilezik de dahil alt\u0131nlar hakk\u0131nda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar vermekten ibarettir. Yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme sonucu yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131:
\n9. Mahkemenin 30.05.2016 tarihli ve 2016\/234 E., 2016\/388 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131 elinde kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek tekrar davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn daval\u0131da oldu\u011fundan bahisle k\u0131smen kabul karar\u0131 verildi\u011fi, bu karar verilirken daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131ya, davac\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n ise davac\u0131ya ait ki\u015fisel mal oldu\u011funun kabul edildi\u011fi, sadece daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 13 gram 22 ayar 1 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bu tak\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f amac\u0131 ve niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re erkek taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131labilecek tak\u0131lardan olmamas\u0131 nedeni ile davan\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fi, \u00d6zel Dairenin ise d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f ve onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle bozma karar\u0131 verdi\u011fi, bu bozma gerek\u00e7esinin do\u011fru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, zira tan\u0131k …\u2019n\u0131n yeminli ifadesinde bu t\u00fcr tak\u0131lar\u0131n kime tak\u0131l\u0131r ise onun say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na dair adetleri oldu\u011funu beyan etti\u011fi, daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n bilirki\u015fi raporunda da foto\u011fraf ve CD incelenerek a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirlendi\u011fi \u00fczere ziynet-yar\u0131m-\u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, para ve bir adet 13 gram 22 ayar bilezikten ibaret oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131 kad\u0131n\u0131n davas\u0131n\u0131n zaten \u00f6nceki kararda kabul edildi\u011fi, di\u011fer ziynet-yar\u0131m-\u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n ise nitelikleri ve kullan\u0131m ama\u00e7lar\u0131 gere\u011fi yat\u0131r\u0131m arac\u0131 olduklar\u0131, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde erkeklerin de alt\u0131n g\u00fcnleri yapmaya ba\u015flad\u0131klar\u0131, bankalarda alt\u0131n hesab\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131klar\u0131, bu t\u00fcr de\u011ferli metallerin tasarruf amac\u0131 ve arac\u0131 olarak s\u00fcrekli al\u0131n\u0131p sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, para biriktirildi\u011finde bu nitelikte de\u011ferli metallerin herkes\u00e7e edinildi\u011finin bir ger\u00e7ek oldu\u011fu, kald\u0131 ki \u00d6zel Dairenin bu tak\u0131lar\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etti\u011fi, ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131n, ba\u011f\u0131\u015flayan ki\u015finin ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesini ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanana tevdi etmesi ve ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanan\u0131n da bu ba\u011f\u0131\u015f\u0131 kabul edilmesi ile sonu\u00e7lanan bir i\u015flem oldu\u011fu, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda davac\u0131ya ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesini g\u00f6sterip ona tak\u0131 takma serbestisi var iken h\u00e2len yat\u0131r\u0131m amac\u0131 ve arac\u0131 niteli\u011finde olan belirtilen tak\u0131lar\u0131n daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde, bu tak\u0131lar\u0131 takanlar\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131\u015f iradesinin davac\u0131ya de\u011fil daval\u0131ya y\u00f6neltildi\u011fi ve onun da kabul etmesi ile art\u0131k daval\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 kanaatinin has\u0131l oldu\u011fu, asl\u0131nda bu nitelikteki tak\u0131lar\u0131n edinilmi\u015f mal oldu\u011fu hususunun da uygulamada tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmaya ba\u015flanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ancak davac\u0131 yan\u0131n bu y\u00f6nde bir talebinin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yine be\u015f adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden daval\u0131n\u0131n annesi de olsa tan\u0131k …\u2019nin bu bilezikleri davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yeminli olarak ifade etti\u011fi, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n do\u011fru s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fine ili\u015fkin somut belirti olmaz ise as\u0131l olan\u0131n yeminli tan\u0131klar\u0131n do\u011fruyu s\u00f6ylediklerinin kabul edilmesi gerekti\u011fi, tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n salt daval\u0131n\u0131n annesi olmas\u0131n\u0131n onun do\u011fruyu s\u00f6ylemedi\u011fini kabule yetmeyece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:
\n10. Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK<\/p>\n
11. Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k;<\/p>\n
a) D\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndeki tak\u0131lar\u0131n tak\u0131lan ki\u015fiye ait olaca\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin gelenekleri bulundu\u011funa dair tan\u0131k beyan\u0131 olan eldeki davada, kullan\u0131l\u0131\u015f amac\u0131 ve niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re erkek taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lamayacaklar hari\u00e7 olmak \u00fczere d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131n erke\u011fin ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131,<\/p>\n
b) Yerel Mahkemece verilen ilk kararda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde davac\u0131ya tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 benimsenen 5 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden talep reddedilmi\u015f ve davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bu husus temyize konu edilmemi\u015f olmakla birlikte, \u00d6zel Dairece davac\u0131 lehine bozma nedeni yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131n\u0131n kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlali mahiyetinde olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflarca ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclmemesi nedeniyle bu hususun re\u2019sen nazara al\u0131n\u0131p al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131, re\u2019sen dikkate al\u0131namayaca\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131lacak olursa d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde davac\u0131 kad\u0131na tak\u0131lan ve saklanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in kendisine teslim edilen 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fi davac\u0131ya iade etti\u011fine ve akabinde birka\u00e7 sefer davac\u0131n\u0131n kolunda g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ili\u015fkin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenen daval\u0131n\u0131n annesinin yeminli beyan\u0131na itibar edilip edilemeyece\u011fi, buradan var\u0131lacak sonu\u00e7lara g\u00f6re daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar ve 5 adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn gerekip gerekmedi\u011fi noktalar\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
III. GEREK\u00c7E<\/p>\n
12. Yerel Mahkeme ile \u00d6zel Daire aras\u0131ndaki uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ispat hukuku y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ge\u00e7erli kurallara de\u011finmekte yarar vard\u0131r:<\/p>\n
13. Dava konusu edilen bir hakk\u0131n ve buna kar\u015f\u0131 yap\u0131lan savunman\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 vak\u0131alar\u0131n (olgular\u0131n) var olup olmad\u0131klar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda mahkemeye kanaat verilmesi i\u015flemine ispat denir.<\/p>\n
14. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun (HMK) 187\/1. maddesi;
\n\u201c\u0130spat\u0131n konusunu taraflar\u0131n \u00fczerinde anla\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131 ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etkili olabilecek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alar olu\u015fturur ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir.\u201d \u015feklinde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
15. Vak\u0131a (olgu) ise, 03.03.2017 tarihli ve 2015\/2 E., 2017\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; kendisine hukuki sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olaylar \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spat\u0131 gereken olaylar, olumlu vak\u0131alar olabilece\u011fi gibi olumsuz vak\u0131alar da olabilir.<\/p>\n
16. Di\u011fer taraftan h\u00e2kim, taraflar aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k konusu olan vak\u0131alar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini, kural olarak kendili\u011finden ara\u015ft\u0131ramaz. Bir olay\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fip ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fini taraflar ispat etmelidir. Bir davada ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn hangi tarafa ait olaca\u011f\u0131 hususu ise HMK\u2019n\u0131n \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 190. maddesinde yer almakta olup;
\n\u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir.
\nKanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini olu\u015fturan vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen istisnalar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir.\u201d \u015feklinde h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
17. Bu h\u00fck\u00fcm, 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 6. maddesinde yer alan: \u201cKanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.” ifadesine paralel olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
18. Nitekim, Hukuk Genel Kurulunun 10.11.2020 tarihli ve 2017\/3-1509 E., 2020\/863 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131nda da ayn\u0131 hususlara de\u011finilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Eldeki davada, davac\u0131 d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n kendisine ait oldu\u011funu ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a verilmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015f; daval\u0131 ise yerel \u00f6rf ve adetleri gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n erkek taraf\u0131na ait oldu\u011funu o nedenle davac\u0131ya verilmedi\u011fini savunmu\u015ftur. Mahkemece daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a iddia edilen \u00f6rf ve adetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin dinletilen tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131na itibar edilerek kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc olanlar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynetlerin kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona ait oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
20. \u0130htilaf d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n taraflardan hangisine ait oldu\u011fu noktas\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
21. Mevzuat\u0131m\u0131zda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet ile parasal de\u011feri olan b\u00fct\u00fcn e\u015fyan\u0131n aidiyeti konusunda yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Bu nedenledir ki, \u00f6rf ve adet hukuku uygulanmaktad\u0131r. Yarg\u0131tay\u0131n yerle\u015fik uygulamas\u0131na, yayg\u0131n \u00f6rf ve adet ile \u00fclke ger\u00e7eklerine g\u00f6re kural olarak, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn s\u0131ras\u0131nda tak\u0131lan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131 ve paralar kim taraf\u0131ndan ve hangi e\u015fe tak\u0131l\u0131rsa tak\u0131ls\u0131n aksine bir anla\u015fma ya da \u00f6rf ve adet kural\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k kad\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 kabul edilir. Yani erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan ziynetler ve paralar\u0131n da aksi kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcddet\u00e7e kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu kabul\u00fc vard\u0131r. S\u00f6z konusu ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n (alt\u0131n vs.) evlenme sebebiyle gerek ailelerce ve gerek yak\u0131nlarca kad\u0131na gelece\u011finin g\u00fcvencesi olarak tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edildi\u011finden emaneten (ge\u00e7ici olarak) tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda kad\u0131n\u0131n bir kabul\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece genel kural kabul edilecektir. Art\u0131k, ziynetlerin geri istenmemek \u00fczere verildi\u011fi iddia ve ispat edilmedik\u00e7e, bunlar\u0131 alan iade etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
22. \u0130spat k\u00fclfetinin hangi tarafta oldu\u011fu hususunun, yukar\u0131da bahsedilen hukuki d\u00fczenleme \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlenmesi gerekmektedir. Daval\u0131 genel kural\u0131n aksine \u00f6rf ve adetleri bulundu\u011funu iddia etti\u011fine g\u00f6re bunu ispat k\u00fclfeti kendisine d\u00fc\u015fmektedir. Daval\u0131 ispat amac\u0131yla muhtar olan tan\u0131k …\u2019\u0131 dinletmi\u015f; tan\u0131k iddia edilenden farkl\u0131 olarak \u201cbizim adetlerimiz d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar, k\u0131za tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa k\u0131z\u0131n, o\u011flana tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa o\u011flan\u0131n olur\u201d \u015feklinde ifade vermi\u015f; mahkemece tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 esas al\u0131narak h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
23. Hemen belirtmek gerekir ki, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde \u00f6rf ve adetleri bulundu\u011funu belirten daval\u0131n\u0131n, dinletti\u011fi tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n beyan\u0131 ve Yarg\u0131tay’\u0131n yerle\u015fik uygulamas\u0131na yans\u0131yan yayg\u0131n \u00f6rf ve adet kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda daha k\u00f6kl\u00fc bir adetin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Bu durumda genel kuraldan ayr\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek bir durum s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
24. Ne var ki, mahkemece dinlenilen daval\u0131 tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 …\u2019nin beyan\u0131na itibar edilerek 5 adet burma bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131ya iade edildi\u011finin kabul\u00fc ile bu 5 bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden talebin reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. Ancak, mahkemece kurulan 10.11.2014 tarihli ve 2013\/241 E., 2014\/732 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karara davac\u0131n\u0131n 5 adet burma bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden itiraz etmemesi nedeniyle bu husus daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden usul\u00fc kazan\u0131lm\u0131\u015f hak te\u015fkil eder. Bu nedenle taraflarca getirilme ilkesine tabi bulunan ve davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a temyize getirilmedi\u011finden bu y\u00f6ndeki ret karar\u0131 kesinle\u015fen 5 adet burma bilezik hakk\u0131ndaki direnme karar\u0131 isabetli olmakla birlikte, yukar\u0131daki a\u00e7\u0131klamalar gere\u011fince, di\u011fer ziynetler bak\u0131m\u0131ndan direnme karar\u0131 Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan isabetli bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. Ayr\u0131ca, somut olayda daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet bilezik y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131n\u0131n talebi mahkemece kabul edildi\u011finden \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131nda yap\u0131lan a\u00e7\u0131klamalar dosya kapsam\u0131 ile \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015fmemektedir. Bu durumda, \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131n\u0131n 1. bendindeki \u201c1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik\u201d ifadesinin bozma karar\u0131nda yer almas\u0131n\u0131n isabetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, karardan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi sonucuna var\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
26. Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn masraflar\u0131na katk\u0131 mahiyetinde oldu\u011fu ve kime tak\u0131ld\u0131ysa ona hediye verilmesi gayesi g\u00fcd\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, tak\u0131lan t\u00fcm ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n kad\u0131na ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanmas\u0131n\u0131n ama\u00e7lanamayaca\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011funca benimsenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
27. Sonu\u00e7 itibariyle, Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uymak gerekirken \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
28. Bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klanan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
IV. SONU\u00c7 :<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
\nDavac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile, Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesinin 27.01.2016 tarihli ve 2015\/2539 E., 2016\/842 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131n\u0131n 9. paragraf\u0131n\u0131n 1. bendindeki \u201c1 adet 22 ayar 13 gr bilezik\u201d ifadesinin bozma karar\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lmas\u0131 suretiyle direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7e ve nedenlerden dolay\u0131, 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun ge\u00e7ici 3. maddesine g\u00f6re uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA,<\/p>\n
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,
\nAyn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 440. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 13.04.2021 tarihinde oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
KAR\u015eI OY<\/p>\n
Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn\u00fcn yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6renin \u00f6rf ve adetine g\u00f6re erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki daval\u0131 savunmas\u0131n\u0131n kan\u0131tlan\u0131p kan\u0131tlanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, buna g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde erke\u011fe hediye olarak tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n, daval\u0131n\u0131n ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 say\u0131l\u0131p say\u0131lmayaca\u011f\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fi erke\u011fe verilmi\u015f kabul edilip edilmeyece\u011fi noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 erkek; y\u00f6renin \u00f6rf ve adetine g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011funu savunmu\u015f, davac\u0131 kad\u0131n ise, \u00f6rf ve adete g\u00f6re ev e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 erkek taraf\u0131n\u0131n almas\u0131 h\u00e2linde tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, oysa taraflar\u0131n ev e\u015fyalar\u0131n\u0131 kendilerinin ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Bu noktada; ziynet kavram\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet kurallar\u0131 ile davada ispat kuralar\u0131na ili\u015fkin yasal d\u00fczenlemelere bakmak gerekir.<\/p>\n
Ziynet; alt\u0131n, g\u00fcm\u00fc\u015f gibi k\u0131ymetli madenlerden yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olup; insanlar taraf\u0131ndan tak\u0131lan s\u00fcs e\u015fyas\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlanmaktad\u0131r (Y\u0131lmaz, E.: Hukuk S\u00f6zl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, … 2011, s. 1529). Ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131 da, evlilik m\u00fcnasebetiyle gelin ve damada verilen hediyeler olarak nitelendirmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.
\nKad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131; bilezik, alt\u0131n kelep\u00e7e, kolye, gerdanl\u0131k, tak\u0131 seti, bileklik, saat, k\u00fcpe ve y\u00fcz\u00fck gibi tak\u0131lar olarak kabul edilmektedir (Sa\u011f\u0131ro\u011flu, M.\u015e: Ziynet davalar\u0131, …, 2013, s.3).<\/p>\n
Kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyalar\u0131; e\u015fler aras\u0131nda bir anla\u015fma yoksa veya bu konuda \u00f6rf ve adet bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a evlilik s\u0131ras\u0131nda kim taraf\u0131ndan hangi e\u015fe tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olursa olsun kad\u0131n e\u015fe ba\u011f\u0131\u015flanm\u0131\u015f say\u0131l\u0131r ve art\u0131k onun ki\u015fisel mal\u0131 niteli\u011fini kazan\u0131r (HGK\u2019n\u0131n 05.05.2004 tarih, 2004\/4-249 E, 2004\/247 K, 04.03.2020 tarih, 2017\/3-1040 E, 2020\/240 K).<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu\u2019nun (TMK) 1\/1 maddesindeki; \u201cKanunda uygulanabilir bir h\u00fck\u00fcm yoksa, hakim , \u00f6rf ve adet hukukuna g\u00f6re, bu da yoksa kendisi kanun koyucu olsayd\u0131 nas\u0131l bir kural koyacak idiyse ona g\u00f6re karar verir.\u201d d\u00fczenlemesi gere\u011fi h\u00e2kim kanunda h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmayan h\u00e2llerde \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fince karar verme yetkisine sahiptir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6rf ve adet kurallar\u0131; belli bir olay ve ili\u015fkilerde toplumun bireylerince belli bir bi\u00e7imdeki davran\u0131\u015f\u0131n tekrarlanmas\u0131 ile yava\u015f yava\u015f organizman\u0131n geli\u015fmesi gibi meydana gelir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bir \u00f6rf ve adet kural\u0131n\u0131n uzun s\u00fcre uygulanmas\u0131 (maddi unsur) bu kurala uyma konusunda toplumda bir inanc\u0131n (psikolojik unsur) yerle\u015fmesi ve kurala uyulmamas\u0131 durumunda bir yapt\u0131r\u0131m ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 konusunda bir kabul\u00fcn olmas\u0131 ( hukuki unsur) gerekir.<\/p>\n
4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) 6. maddesi:
\n\u201cKanunda aksine bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, taraflardan her biri, hakk\u0131n\u0131 dayand\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 olgular\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. \u201d
\n6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu (HMK)\u2019nun \u201c\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan 190. maddesi:<\/p>\n
\u201c(1) \u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir.<\/p>\n
(2) Kanuni bir karineye dayanan taraf, sadece karinenin temelini olu\u015fturan vak\u0131aya ili\u015fkin ispat y\u00fck\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Kanunda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen istisnalar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf, kanuni karinenin aksini ispat edebilir.\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc i\u00e7ermektedir.<\/p>\n
HMK\u2019n\u0131n 190. maddenin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fcn belirlenmesine ili\u015fkin temel kural vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Buna g\u00f6re, bir vak\u0131aya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan taraf ispat y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131yacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130spat\u0131n konusu, taraflar\u0131n \u00fczerinde anla\u015famad\u0131klar\u0131 ve bu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcne etkili olabilecek \u00e7eki\u015fmeli vak\u0131alard\u0131r ve bu vak\u0131alar\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir.
\nVak\u0131a (olgu) ise, 03.03.2017 tarihli ve 2015\/2 E. ve 2017\/1 K. say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda; kendisine hukuki sonu\u00e7 ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015f olaylar \u015feklinde tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u0130spat\u0131 gereken olaylar, olumlu vak\u0131alar olabilece\u011fi gibi olumsuz vak\u0131alar da olabilir.<\/p>\n
Bir davada o davan\u0131n \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc etkileyebilecek vak\u0131alar i\u00e7in delil g\u00f6sterilir ve ancak bu deliller inceleme konusu olabilir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle, delil, bir vak\u0131an\u0131n ispat\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fvurulan vas\u0131talard\u0131r ve konusu da maddi hukuktur.<\/p>\n
\u00d6ncelikle d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan ziynet ve alt\u0131nlar\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve miktar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti gerekir.<\/p>\n
D\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde taraflara tak\u0131lan bilezikler ile alt\u0131nlar\u0131n tespiti i\u00e7in davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131 adet foto\u011fraf ve CD \u00fczerinde yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesi sonucu d\u00fczenlenen as\u0131l ve ek raporlar ve tan\u0131k beyan\u0131na g\u00f6re, mahkemece, davac\u0131 kad\u0131n \u00fczerinde 5 adet 22 ayar, her biri 22 gram … burmas\u0131, 11 adet 22 ayar her biri 15 gram civar\u0131nda tak\u0131 bilezi\u011fi, 1 adet 14 ayar 10 gram fantezi bilezik ile 31 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, daval\u0131 erkek \u00fczerinde ise, 1 adet 13 gram 22 ayar bilezik, 2 adet ziynet alt\u0131n, 3 yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 80 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, erkek \u00fczerine tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tespit edilen 1 adet bilezik daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de kad\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131 olmas\u0131 nedeniyle kad\u0131na ait oldu\u011fu ayr\u0131ca 5 … burma bilezi\u011fin de davac\u0131da kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilerek, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131 temyizinde davac\u0131, \u00f6rf ve adet y\u00f6n\u00fcnde yeterli ara\u015ft\u0131rma yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f, mahkemece davac\u0131da kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kabul edilen 5 … burma bilezi\u011fi temyiz konusu yapmam\u0131\u015f, daval\u0131 da temyizinde, k\u00f6y muhtar\u0131n\u0131n beyan\u0131 ile y\u00f6resel \u00f6rf ve \u00e2detin belirlendi\u011fini, buna g\u00f6re \u00fczerinde tespit edilen alt\u0131nlar\u0131n davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan talep edilmesinin yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131 \u00fczerinde 15 \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n tespit edilmesine ra\u011fmen, 31 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131ya iadesi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki karar\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrerek temyiz etmi\u015f, daval\u0131 erkek \u00fczerinde tespit edilen 1 adet 22 ayar, 13 gram bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131ya iadesini temyiz konusu yapmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
\nBu durumda; mahkemenin, ilk karar\u0131nda, 5 adet bilezi\u011fin davac\u0131da bulundu\u011fu, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde daval\u0131ya tak\u0131lan 1 adet bilezi\u011fin de davac\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki kabul\u00fc taraflarca temyiz konusu yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00d6zel Dairenin bu y\u00f6ndeki bozmas\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.<\/p>\n
Belirtilen yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ve t\u00fcm deliller birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; taraflar\u0131n ayn\u0131 k\u00f6yl\u00fc oldu\u011fu ve d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnlerinin k\u00f6yde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, CD ve foto\u011fraflarda taraflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcnde kad\u0131n ve erke\u011fe ayr\u0131 ku\u015fak tak\u0131larak tak\u0131lar\u0131n ayr\u0131 ayr\u0131 tak\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 ve 9 y\u0131l k\u00f6y muhtarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yapan tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n, \u201cadetlere g\u00f6re, d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde k\u0131za tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n k\u0131za, erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan tak\u0131lar\u0131n erke\u011fe ait oldu\u011fu\u201d beyan\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, y\u00f6resel \u00f6rf ve adet gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde daval\u0131 erke\u011fe tak\u0131lan alt\u0131nlar\u0131n daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu kan\u0131tlanm\u0131\u015f bulundu\u011fundan, mahkemenin direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n yerinde oldu\u011fu, karar\u0131n onanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde oldu\u011fumuzdan, say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun aksi y\u00f6ndeki bozma karar\u0131na kat\u0131l\u0131nmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay Hukuk Genel Kurulu 2017\/1038 E., 2021\/458 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :Aile Mahkemesi 1. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201cziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n aynen iadesi, olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde bedelinin tahsili\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, … 12. Aile Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir. 2. Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir. 3. Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc: I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130 Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi: 4. Davac\u0131 vekili bo\u015fanma talebini de i\u00e7eren daha sonra ziynet talepleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tefrik edilen dava dilek\u00e7esinde; taraflara d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan 200 adet \u00e7eyrek alt\u0131n, 6 adet tam alt\u0131n, 3 adet yar\u0131m alt\u0131n, 19 adet 20’\u015fer gram 22 ayar alt\u0131n bilezik ile 1 adet 14 ayar 13 gram alt\u0131n bilezikten olu\u015fan ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ncelikle aynen iadesine, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmamas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u00f6deme g\u00fcn\u00fcndeki de\u011ferlerinin daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131: 5. Daval\u0131 vekili; talep edilen miktarda ziynet e\u015fyas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, toplamda 150 civar\u0131 k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck alt\u0131n ve muhtelif \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fclerde bilezik tak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ancak \u00f6rf ve adetlere g\u00f6re d\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde tak\u0131lan t\u00fcm tak\u0131lar\u0131n erkek taraf\u0131na ait oldu\u011funu savunarak davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkeme Karar\u0131: 6. … 12. Aile Mahkemesinin 10.11.2014 …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n