T\u00dcRK\u0130YE CUMHUR\u0130YET\u0130<\/p>\n
ANAYASA MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
FATMA MUTLU BA\u015eVURUSU<\/p>\n
(Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/46030)<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024<\/p>\n
R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/2\/2025 – 32820<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
KARAR<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fkan<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN<\/p>\n
\u00dcyeler<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Selahaddin MENTE\u015e<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u0130rfan F\u0130DAN<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L<\/p>\n
Raport\u00f6r<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
\u015eahap KAYMAK<\/p>\n
Ba\u015fvurucu<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Fatma MUTLU<\/p>\n
Vekili<\/p>\n
:<\/p>\n
Av. Y\u0131lmaz T\u00dcRK<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 <\/p>\n
1. Ba\u015fvuru, istinaf kanun yolu ba\u015fvurusunun dava dilek\u00e7esindeki de\u011fer esas al\u0131narak reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
2. Mu\u011fla’n\u0131n Marmaris il\u00e7esi Hisar\u00f6n\u00fc Mahallesi’nde bulunan payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015f\u0131 olan davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan Marmaris 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine \u00f6n al\u0131m hakk\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Mahkeme; ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rd\u0131ktan sonra davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, ba\u015fvurucunun 1\/16 oran\u0131ndaki pay\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile bu pay\u0131n davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tapuya tesciline ve 5.100 TL \u00f6n al\u0131m bedelinin karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine istinaf kanun yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde harita m\u00fchendisi ve kadastro teknikeri bilirki\u015finin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi raporda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015flar taraf\u0131ndan be\u015f ayr\u0131 b\u00f6l\u00fcm h\u00e2linde kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, kullan\u0131lan yerlerin alanlar\u0131 ve kullan\u0131m \u015fekli ile s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Gayrimenkul de\u011ferleme uzman\u0131, ziraat\u00e7i ve in\u015faat\u00e7\u0131 bilirki\u015finin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi raporda ise dava tarihi olan 25\/2\/2020 itibar\u0131yla davac\u0131n\u0131n 2171\/21136 oran\u0131ndaki pay\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin 370.000 TL olarak hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mahallinde yap\u0131lan ke\u015fifte ba\u015fvurucuya pay\u0131n\u0131 devreden dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 payda\u015f\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 ayr\u0131 bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn tespit edilemedi\u011fine i\u015faret etmi\u015f, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ba\u015fvurucunun ba\u015fka delillerle fiil\u00ee taksim iddias\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131na de\u011finmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurmas\u0131 \u00fczerine \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 22. Hukuk Dairesi (B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi) istinaf dilek\u00e7esinin reddine kesin olarak karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde; dava de\u011feri olan 5.100 TL’nin karar tarihi itibar\u0131yla 12\/1\/2011 tarihli ve 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 341. ve ek 1. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca istinaf kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirtmi\u015ftir. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un ek 1. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde 1\/1\/2021 tarihi itibar\u0131yla istinaf kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131 5.880 TL oldu\u011fundan mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n istinafa tabi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
5. Ba\u015fvurucu, nihai h\u00fckm\u00fc 1\/10\/2021 tarihinde \u00f6\u011frendikten sonra 26\/10\/2021 tarihinde bireysel ba\u015fvuruda bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
6. 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
7. Ba\u015fvurucu; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011feri tespit edilirken davac\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131 esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bilirki\u015fi raporunda maddi hata yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, rapordaki m\u00b2 birim bedeli \u00fczerinden kendi pay\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin hesaplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ve buna g\u00f6re dava de\u011ferinin 225.139,52 TL oldu\u011funu ifade etmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu de\u011fere g\u00f6re davac\u0131ya nispi har\u00e7 tamamlat\u0131larak yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilmesi gerekirken istinaf kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kalan dava dilek\u00e7esindeki de\u011fere g\u00f6re yarg\u0131laman\u0131n neticelendi\u011fini belirterek mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
8. Ba\u015fvuru belgelerinin bir \u00f6rne\u011fi bilgi i\u00e7in Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
9. A\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dayanaktan yoksun olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kabul edilemezli\u011fine karar verilmesini gerektirecek ba\u015fka bir neden de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n kabul edilebilir oldu\u011funa karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
10. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131nda, herkesin yarg\u0131 mercileri \u00f6n\u00fcnde davac\u0131 veya daval\u0131 olarak iddiada bulunma ve savunma hakk\u0131na sahip oldu\u011fu belirtilmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131, Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan hak arama \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bir unsurudur (\u00d6zbak\u0131m \u00d6zel Sa\u011fl\u0131k Hiz. \u0130n\u015f. Tur. San. ve Tic. Ltd. \u015eti., B. No: 2014\/13156, 20\/4\/2017, \u00a7 34).<\/p>\n
11. \u00d6te yandan mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 ilk derece mahkemesine dava a\u00e7ma hakk\u0131n\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra itiraz, istinaf veya temyiz gibi kanun yollar\u0131na ba\u015fvurma imk\u00e2n\u0131 tan\u0131nm\u0131\u015f ise an\u0131lan yollara ba\u015fvurma hakk\u0131n\u0131 da i\u00e7erir (Ali Atl\u0131, B. No: 2013\/500, 20\/3\/2014, \u00a7 49).<\/p>\n
12. Ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf dilek\u00e7esinin, dava dilek\u00e7esindeki dava de\u011feri itibar\u0131yla mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kesin olmas\u0131 nedeniyle reddedilmesi sonucunda mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na y\u00f6nelik bir m\u00fcdahalede bulunuldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na yap\u0131lan bu m\u00fcdahalenin ise \u00f6ncelikle belirli, ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir bir kanuni temelinin bulunmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle somut ba\u015fvuru bak\u0131m\u0131ndan Anayasa Mahkemesi, \u00f6ncelikle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131na m\u00fcdahale te\u015fkil eden B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin istinaf dilek\u00e7esinin reddi karar\u0131n\u0131n kanuni bir dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tespit etmek durumundad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
13. Hak ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklerin, bunlara yap\u0131lacak m\u00fcdahalelerin ve s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131rmalar\u0131n kanunla d\u00fczenlenmesi bu haklara ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fcklere keyf\u00ee m\u00fcdahaleyi engelleyen, hukuk g\u00fcvenli\u011fini sa\u011flayan demokratik hukuk devletinin en \u00f6nemli unsurlar\u0131ndan biridir (Tahsin Erdo\u011fan, B. No: 2012\/1246, 6\/2\/2014, \u00a7 60).<\/p>\n
14. M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131 \u00f6ncelikle \u015fekl\u00ee manada bir kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 zorunlu k\u0131lar. T\u00fcrkiye B\u00fcy\u00fck Millet Meclisi taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lan \u015fekl\u00ee anlamda bir kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmamas\u0131 hakka yap\u0131lan m\u00fcdahaleyi anayasal temelden yoksun b\u0131rak\u0131r (Ali H\u0131d\u0131r Akyol ve di\u011ferleri [GK], B. No: 2015\/17510, 18\/10\/2017, \u00a7 56). Kanunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar kanun metninin ve uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n da bireylerin davran\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131n sonucunu \u00f6ng\u00f6rebilece\u011fi kadar hukuki belirlilik ta\u015f\u0131mas\u0131 gerekir. Bir di\u011fer ifadeyle kanunun kalitesi de kanunilik ko\u015fulunun sa\u011flan\u0131p sa\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tespitinde \u00f6nem arz etmektedir (Necmiye \u00c7ift\u00e7i ve di\u011ferleri, B. No: 2013\/1301, 30\/12\/2014, \u00a7 55). M\u00fcdahalenin kanuna dayal\u0131 olmas\u0131, i\u00e7 hukukta m\u00fcdahaleye ili\u015fkin yeterince ula\u015f\u0131labilir ve \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclebilir kurallar\u0131n bulunmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirmektedir (T\u00fcrkiye \u0130\u015f Bankas\u0131 A.\u015e. [GK], B. No: 2014\/6192, 12\/11\/2014, \u00a7 44).<\/p>\n
15. Kanunilik unsuru y\u00f6n\u00fcnden de\u011ferlendirme yap\u0131l\u0131rken derece mahkemelerince m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin yorumu ve bu h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin olaya uygulanmas\u0131 bariz takdir hatas\u0131 ya da a\u00e7\u0131k bir keyf\u00eelik i\u00e7ermedi\u011fi s\u00fcrece bu alanda bir inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131 bireysel ba\u015fvurunun amac\u0131yla ba\u011fda\u015fmaz. Ancak derece mahkemelerinin m\u00fcdahaleye imk\u00e2n tan\u0131yan kanun h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde hatal\u0131 yorumlad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n ve uygulad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n tespiti h\u00e2linde m\u00fcdahalenin kanunilik temelinden yoksun oldu\u011fu sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131labilir (Ramazan Atay, B. No: 2017\/26048, 29\/1\/2020, \u00a7 29).<\/p>\n
16. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 341. maddesinin (2) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda miktar veya de\u011feri \u00fc\u00e7 bin T\u00fcrk liras\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7meyen mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 davalar\u0131na ili\u015fkin kararlar\u0131n kesin oldu\u011fu ancak manevi tazminat davalar\u0131nda verilen kararlara kar\u015f\u0131 miktar veya de\u011fere bak\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n istinaf kanun yoluna ba\u015fvurulabilece\u011fi kurala ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 2\/7\/1964 tarihli ve 492 say\u0131l\u0131 Har\u00e7lar Kanunu’nun 16. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda de\u011fer \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcs\u00fcne g\u00f6re harca tabi i\u015flemlerde (1) say\u0131l\u0131 tarifede yaz\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlerin esas al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131, m\u00fcdahalenin meni tescil ve tapu kay\u0131t iptali gibi gayrimenkul\u00fcn ayn\u0131na taalluk eden davalarda gayrimenkul\u00fcn de\u011ferinin nazara al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131, (4) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131nda noksan tespit edilen de\u011ferler hakk\u0131nda 30. madde h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn uygulanaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Kanun’un 30. maddesinde de muhakeme s\u0131ras\u0131nda tespit olunan de\u011ferin dava dilek\u00e7esinde bildirilen de\u011ferden fazla oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131rsa yaln\u0131z o celse i\u00e7in muhakemeye devam olunaca\u011f\u0131, takip eden celseye kadar noksan de\u011fer \u00fczerinden pe\u015fin karar ve ilam harc\u0131 tamamlanmad\u0131k\u00e7a davaya devam olunmayaca\u011f\u0131, 18\/6\/1927 tarihli ve 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 m\u00fclga Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 409. maddesinde g\u00f6sterilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde dosyan\u0131n muameleye konulmas\u0131n\u0131n noksan olan harc\u0131n \u00f6denmesine ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
17. Ba\u015fvuru konusu dava, gayrimenkul\u00fcn ayn\u0131na ili\u015fkin tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131d\u0131r. Davaya konu de\u011ferin belirlenmesi \u00f6denecek nispi harc\u0131n miktar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan \u00f6nemli oldu\u011fu gibi davan\u0131n temyize tabi olup olmamas\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan da \u00f6nemlidir. Dava konusu de\u011ferin rahat\u00e7a belirlenebildi\u011fi durumlarda \u00f6denecek harc\u0131n miktar\u0131 ve temyiz s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n belirlenmesi zor olmamakla birlikte dava de\u011ferinin belirlenmesinin ilk bak\u0131\u015fta tespit edilemedi\u011fi durumlarda ayn\u0131 \u015feyi s\u00f6ylemek kolay de\u011fildir. Tapu iptal ve tescil davalar\u0131nda da dava konusu de\u011ferin belirlenmesinin zorlu\u011fu sebebiyle kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenleme yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda da durum a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131\u011fa kavu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. An\u0131lan Yarg\u0131tay i\u00e7tihatlar\u0131nda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ayn\u0131na y\u00f6nelik davalarda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n dava tarihindeki ger\u00e7ek bedelinin belirlenmesinin ancak mahallinde yap\u0131lacak ke\u015fif sonucu al\u0131nacak bilirki\u015fi raporuyla m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu durumda belirlenen ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden harc\u0131n tamamlanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, aksi h\u00e2lde yarg\u0131lamaya devam edilemeyece\u011finin yasal d\u00fczenleme oldu\u011fu hat\u0131rlat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Belirlenen ger\u00e7ek de\u011fer \u00fczerinden harc\u0131n tamamlat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan resen yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi de vurgulanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (baz\u0131 farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla birlikte B\u00fclent \u00d6zer, B. No: 2018\/36896, 25\/2\/2021, \u00a7 45).<\/p>\n
18. Somut olayda payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1\/16 oran\u0131ndaki pay\u0131n\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu sat\u0131n alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Marmaris Tapu M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen 2\/1\/2020 tarihli ve 40 yevmiye numaral\u0131 resm\u00ee senette ba\u015fvurucunun bu pay i\u00e7in 5.000 TL sat\u0131\u015f bedeli ile 100 TL tapu harc\u0131 \u00f6dedi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015f\u0131 olan davac\u0131, ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine \u00f6n al\u0131m hakk\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f, dava dilek\u00e7esinde dava de\u011ferini resm\u00ee senetteki sat\u0131\u015f bedeli olan 5.000 TL olarak belirtmi\u015ftir. Buna g\u00f6re Mahkeme 22\/10\/2020 tarihli 1. celsede ba\u015fvurucunun \u00f6n al\u0131ma konupay\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin olarak 5.000 TL bedel ile 100 TL tapu harc\u0131n\u0131n iki haftal\u0131k s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde Mahkeme veznesine depo edilmesi amac\u0131yla davac\u0131ya kesin s\u00fcre vermi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 2\/11\/2020 tarihinde toplam 5.100 TL Mahkeme veznesine depo edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
19. Ba\u015fvurucu; Mahkemeye sundu\u011fu 3\/9\/2020 tarihli cevaba cevap dilek\u00e7esinde sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 pay i\u00e7in 5\/11\/2019 tarihinde 48.000 TL, 7\/11\/2019 tarihinde 12.000 TL ve 2\/1\/2020 tarihinde 39.900 TL olmak \u00fczere toplam 99.900 TL banka hesab\u0131ndan para g\u00f6nderdi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca tapu i\u015flemleri i\u00e7in 100 TL elden verdi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Pay\u0131n\u0131 devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 payda\u015f\u0131n tapu i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatarak tapuya sat\u0131\u015f bedelini 5.000 TL olarak beyan etti\u011fini ifade etmi\u015ftir. S\u00f6z konusu dilek\u00e7e ve bireysel ba\u015fvuru formu ekinde ba\u015fvurucu i\u015flem a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131nda “arsa paras\u0131” ibaresi yer alan ve buna ili\u015fkin tutarlar\u0131n \u00f6dendi\u011fini g\u00f6sterenbanka dekontlar\u0131n\u0131 sunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
20. Yine ba\u015fvurucunun 2\/11\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle \u00f6n al\u0131ma konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin belirlenmesi, tespit edilecek yeni de\u011fere g\u00f6re davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan harc\u0131n yat\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, aksi takdirde davaya devam edilemeyece\u011finin; 30\/12\/2020 tarihli dilek\u00e7eyle de pay\u0131n\u0131 devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 payda\u015f\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazda geriye kalan pay\u0131ndan 516 m\u00b2lik k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 200.000 TL’ye devretti\u011fini Mahkemeye bildirdi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
21. \u00d6te yandan Mahkemece taraflar\u0131n ve bilirki\u015filerin kat\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ile 19\/2\/2021 tarihinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mahallinde ke\u015fif yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ke\u015fif sonras\u0131nda bilirki\u015filerce d\u00fczenlenen ve 23\/3\/2021 tarihinde Mahkemenin evrak kayd\u0131na giren bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki pay\u0131 848,04 m\u00b2 olarak hesaplanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Raporda davac\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131na dava tarihi itibar\u0131yla 370.000 TL k\u0131ymet takdir edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
22. Bu rapora kar\u015f\u0131 ba\u015fvurucu 29\/3\/2021 tarihli beyan dilek\u00e7esinde raporda kendisine ait 516,02 m\u00b2lik pay\u0131n de\u011ferinin belirlenmesi gerekirken davac\u0131ya ait 848,04 m\u00b2lik pay\u0131n de\u011ferinin belirlendi\u011fini, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava de\u011ferinin yanl\u0131\u015f hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dava de\u011ferinin kendi pay\u0131 esas al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda 225.139,52 TL oldu\u011funu ve bu de\u011fer \u00fczerinden eksik olan harc\u0131n davac\u0131ya tamamlat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Ba\u015fvurucu 13\/8\/2021 tarihli istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde de ayn\u0131 hususlar\u0131 dile getirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
23. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebini dava dilek\u00e7esindeki dava de\u011feri \u00fczerinden de\u011ferlendirirken ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daha y\u00fcksek dava de\u011ferine ili\u015fkin hususlar\u0131n neden kabul edilebilir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir a\u00e7\u0131klamada bulunmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Oysa ba\u015fvurucunun sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 pay i\u00e7in 100.000 TL \u00f6dedi\u011fi ve bu \u00f6demeye ili\u015fkin banka dekontlar\u0131n\u0131 ibraz etti\u011fi, pay\u0131n\u0131 devrald\u0131\u011f\u0131 payda\u015f\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki geriye kalan pay\u0131n\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc bir ki\u015fiye 200.000 TL’ye satt\u0131\u011f\u0131, bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131n\u0131n pay\u0131na 370.000 TL de\u011fer bi\u00e7ildi\u011fi iddialar\u0131 dava de\u011ferinin net olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6stermektedir. Kald\u0131 ki ba\u015fvurucu, bilirki\u015fi raporunda kendi pay\u0131n\u0131n de\u011feri i\u00e7in k\u0131ymet takdiri yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmi\u015f; rapordaki m\u00b2 birim bedeli \u00fczerinden kendi pay\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferinin, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dava de\u011ferinin 225.139,52 TL oldu\u011funu savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
24. Eldeki ba\u015fvuruya konu olayda resm\u00ee senetteki yaz\u0131l\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f bedeli ile 492 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 16. maddesinin (1) numaral\u0131 f\u0131kras\u0131 gere\u011fince ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011feri aras\u0131nda a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 bir dengesizlik bulundu\u011fu ve bu dengesizlik nedeniyle dava de\u011ferindeki belirsizli\u011fin ba\u015fvurucunun istinaf talebinin incelenmemesine sebebiyet verdi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu itibarla \u00f6n al\u0131m hakk\u0131na konu pay\u0131n ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferinin mahallinde yap\u0131lacak ke\u015fif sonucu al\u0131nacak bilirki\u015fi raporuyla tespit edilmesi ve s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fer \u00fczerinden harc\u0131n tamamlat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekirken B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince dava dilek\u00e7esindeki dava de\u011feri esas al\u0131nmak suretiyle dava de\u011ferinin istinaf kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131n alt\u0131nda kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle istinaf dilek\u00e7esinin reddedilmesinin kanuni dayana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
25. A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
26. Ba\u015fvurucunun ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n fiilen taksim edildi\u011fini ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki pay sahiplerinin tan\u0131k olarak dinlenmedi\u011fini belirterek hakkaniyete uygun yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131n\u0131n da ihlal edildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc g\u00f6r\u00fclmekle birlikte mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ula\u015f\u0131lan sonu\u00e7 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde bu a\u015famada an\u0131lan ihlal iddialar\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden inceleme yap\u0131lmas\u0131na gerek bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
III. G\u0130DER\u0130M <\/p>\n
27. Ba\u015fvurucu, ihlalin tespiti ve yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ile 50.000 TL manevi tazminat talebinde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
28. Ba\u015fvuruda tespit edilen hak ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131nda hukuki yarar bulunmaktad\u0131r. Bu kapsamda karar\u0131n g\u00f6nderildi\u011fi yarg\u0131 mercilerince yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken i\u015f, yeniden yarg\u0131lama i\u015flemlerini ba\u015flatmak ve Anayasa Mahkemesini ihlal sonucuna ula\u015ft\u0131ran nedenleri gideren, ihlal karar\u0131nda belirtilen ilkelere uygun yeni bir karar vermektir (Mehmet Do\u011fan [GK], B. No: 2014\/8875, 7\/6\/2018, \u00a7\u00a7 54-60; Alig\u00fcl Alkaya ve di\u011ferleri (2), B. No: 2016\/12506, 7\/11\/2019, \u00a7\u00a7 53-60, 66; Kadri Enis Berbero\u011flu (3) [GK], B. No: 2020\/32949, 21\/1\/2021, \u00a7\u00a7 93-100).<\/p>\n
29. \u0130hlalin ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli bir giderim sa\u011flayaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ba\u015fvurucunun manevi tazminat talebinin reddine karar verilmesi gerekir.<\/p>\n
IV. H\u00dcK\u00dcM<\/p>\n
A\u00e7\u0131klanan gerek\u00e7elerle;<\/p>\n
A. Mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddian\u0131n KABUL ED\u0130LEB\u0130L\u0130R OLDU\u011eUNA,<\/p>\n
B. Anayasa’n\u0131n 36. maddesinde g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131nan adil yarg\u0131lanma hakk\u0131 kapsam\u0131ndaki mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n \u0130HLAL ED\u0130LD\u0130\u011e\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
C. Di\u011fer ihlal iddialar\u0131n\u0131n \u0130NCELENMES\u0130NE GEREK OLMADI\u011eINA,<\/p>\n
D. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlalinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yeniden yarg\u0131lama yap\u0131lmak \u00fczere \u0130zmir B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 22. Hukuk Dairesine (E.2021\/1210, K.2021\/1157) iletilmek \u00fczere Marmaris 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesine (E.2020\/79, K.2021\/175) G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
E. Ba\u015fvurucunun tazminat talebinin REDD\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
F. 487,60 TL har\u00e7 ve 30.000 TL vek\u00e2let \u00fccretinden olu\u015fan toplam 30.487,60 TL yarg\u0131lama giderinin ba\u015fvurucuya \u00d6DENMES\u0130NE,<\/p>\n
G. \u00d6demelerin karar\u0131n tebli\u011fini takiben ba\u015fvurucunun Hazine ve Maliye Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ba\u015fvuru tarihinden itibaren d\u00f6rt ay i\u00e7inde yap\u0131lmas\u0131na, \u00f6demede gecikme olmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde bu s\u00fcrenin sona erdi\u011fi tarihten \u00f6deme tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7in yasal FA\u0130Z UYGULANMASINA,<\/p>\n
H. Karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin Adalet Bakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131na G\u00d6NDER\u0130LMES\u0130NE 23\/10\/2024 tarihinde OYB\u0130RL\u0130\u011e\u0130YLE karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bAnayasa Mahkemesi’nin 23\/10\/2024 tarihli ve 2021\/46030 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 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 FATMA MUTLU BA\u015eVURUSU (Ba\u015fvuru Numaras\u0131: 2021\/46030) \u00a0 Karar Tarihi: 23\/10\/2024 R.G. Tarih ve Say\u0131: 21\/2\/2025 – 32820 \u00a0 B\u0130R\u0130NC\u0130 B\u00d6L\u00dcM \u00a0 KARAR \u00a0 Ba\u015fkan : Hasan Tahsin G\u00d6KCAN \u00dcyeler : Yusuf \u015eevki HAKYEMEZ \u00a0 \u00a0 Selahaddin MENTE\u015e \u00a0 \u00a0 \u0130rfan F\u0130DAN \u00a0 \u00a0 Y\u0131lmaz AK\u00c7\u0130L Raport\u00f6r : \u015eahap KAYMAK Ba\u015fvurucu : Fatma MUTLU Vekili : Av. Y\u0131lmaz T\u00dcRK \u00a0 I. BA\u015eVURUNUN \u00d6ZET\u0130 1. Ba\u015fvuru, istinaf kanun yolu ba\u015fvurusunun dava dilek\u00e7esindeki de\u011fer esas al\u0131narak reddedilmesi nedeniyle mahkemeye eri\u015fim hakk\u0131n\u0131n ihlal edildi\u011fi iddias\u0131na ili\u015fkindir. 2. Mu\u011fla’n\u0131n Marmaris il\u00e7esi Hisar\u00f6n\u00fc Mahallesi’nde bulunan payl\u0131 m\u00fclkiyete konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015f\u0131 olan davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan Marmaris 3. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinde (Mahkeme) ba\u015fvurucu aleyhine \u00f6n al\u0131m hakk\u0131ndan kaynaklanan tapu iptal ve tescil davas\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. 3. Mahkeme; ke\u015fif ve bilirki\u015fi incelemesi yapt\u0131rd\u0131ktan sonra davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, ba\u015fvurucunun 1\/16 oran\u0131ndaki pay\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile bu pay\u0131n davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tapuya tesciline ve 5.100 TL \u00f6n al\u0131m bedelinin karar kesinle\u015fti\u011finde ba\u015fvurucuya \u00f6denmesine istinaf kanun yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere karar vermi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n gerek\u00e7esinde harita m\u00fchendisi ve kadastro teknikeri bilirki\u015finin d\u00fczenledi\u011fi raporda ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015flar taraf\u0131ndan be\u015f ayr\u0131 b\u00f6l\u00fcm h\u00e2linde kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, kullan\u0131lan yerlerin alanlar\u0131 ve kullan\u0131m \u015fekli ile s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini belirtmi\u015ftir. Gayrimenkul de\u011ferleme uzman\u0131, ziraat\u00e7i ve in\u015faat\u00e7\u0131 …<\/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-33768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n