T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2021\/1739 E., 2021\/11572 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : BEYKOZ 2. ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne dair verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm hakk\u0131nda b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan istinaf incelemesi sonucunda; daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne dair verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; dosya i\u00e7erisindeki b\u00fct\u00fcn ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131; iki adet ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki \u00bc ve \u00bd oran\u0131ndaki paylar\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in akrabas\u0131 olan daval\u0131ya noterde sat\u0131\u015f vekaletnamesi verdi\u011fini, hisse sat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan biri hakk\u0131nda 287.500 TL, di\u011feri hakk\u0131nda 525.000 TL toplam\u0131 812.500 TL\u2019den ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi halde daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 503.600 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131larak bakiye 308.900 TL’nin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanarak sebepsiz zenginle\u015fti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, s\u00f6z konusu bedelin sat\u0131\u015f tarihinden itibaren bankalar\u0131n ticari mevduata uygulad\u0131klar\u0131 en y\u00fcksek faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131; davac\u0131n\u0131n aldat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f ve fiyat tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n evinde e\u015fi huzurunda karde\u015fler haz\u0131rken yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, emlak\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n da haz\u0131r bulundu\u011funu, davac\u0131 ve karde\u015flerine ait olup \u00bc hissedar oldu\u011fu 5 nolu parselin 800.000 TL’ye, \u00bd hissedar oldu\u011fu di\u011fer 6 nolu parseldeki bo\u015f arsa vasf\u0131ndaki 127 m\u00b2lik yerin 320.000 TL’ye, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 karde\u015f …’in oturdu\u011fu 2 katl\u0131 betonarme meskun binan\u0131n bulundu\u011fu k\u0131sm\u0131n ise 1.100.000 TL’ye sat\u0131lmas\u0131 hususunda s\u00f6zl\u00fc olarak anla\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015flar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 vak\u0131ftan \u00e7ek al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fme do\u011frultusunda da davac\u0131n\u0131n e\u015fine \u00f6dendi\u011fini, tapudaki bedel farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n vak\u0131f\u00e7a yapt\u0131r\u0131lan eksper raporundan kaynakland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, kendisine fazla \u00f6deme yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak, davan\u0131n reddini dilemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u0130lk derece mahkemesince; taraflar\u0131n karde\u015f olduklar\u0131, dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapuda arsa vasf\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 karde\u015fleri …’in 1\/2’\u015fer hisse ile malik olduklar\u0131 6 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerinde bulunan iki katl\u0131 binan\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f tarihi olan 26\/01\/2016 tarihindeki de\u011ferinin 91.426 TL oldu\u011fu, sadece bina sebebiyle iki hissedar\u0131n paylar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011feri aras\u0131nda bu kadar fark olmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayaca\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n ve tan\u0131klar\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n hissesine az de\u011fer bi\u00e7ilerek davac\u0131n\u0131n onay\u0131n\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin beyanlara itibar edilemeyece\u011fi, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 sat\u0131n alan vakfa ait kay\u0131tlarda vak\u0131f taraf\u0131ndan 2.151.450 TL sat\u0131n alma bedeli, ayr\u0131ca 88.247,50 TL tapu harc\u0131 \u00f6dendi\u011fi, yani iki parsel y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bedelin resmi senede g\u00f6re toplam 2.200.000 TL, vak\u0131f kay\u0131tlar\u0131na g\u00f6re ise 2.151.450 TL oldu\u011fu, iki resmi kay\u0131t aras\u0131nda az bir fark bulunmakla birlikte resmi belgelerdeki kay\u0131tlar kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, tapuda bedelin y\u00fcksek g\u00f6sterildi\u011fine ili\u015fkin iddialar\u0131n ve beyanlar\u0131n ger\u00e7e\u011fi yans\u0131tmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle, daval\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan uhdesinde bulunan 308.900 TL’nin yasal faizi ile birlikte davac\u0131ya verilmesine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesince; tapu senedinde sat\u0131\u015f bedellerinin farkl\u0131 g\u00f6sterilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n, toplam bedel dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n fazla tahsilatta bulundu\u011fu anlam\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131mayaca\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n davac\u0131, daval\u0131 ve dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 miras\u00e7\u0131lar ile aralar\u0131nda yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zl\u00fc anla\u015fmaya uygun olarak yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 nedeniyle vekil olan … taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya 503.600 TL \u00f6dendi\u011fi, bu durumda vekil taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131ya 6.400 TL eksik \u00f6demede bulunuldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fc ile 6.400 TL’nin sat\u0131\u015f tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
1)Daval\u0131n\u0131n temyizi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden;<\/p>\n
6763 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun ile 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 HMK’ya eklenen ek 1. madde uyar\u0131nca; ayn\u0131 Kanunun 362. maddesinde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen kesinlik s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131, 01\/01\/2020 tarihinden itibaren 72.070 TL\u2019ye \u00e7\u0131kart\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
\u0130stinaf incelemesi sonucunda daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden verilen karar, karar tarihi itibariyle kesin niteliktedir. HMK’n\u0131n 366. maddesi atf\u0131yla ayn\u0131 Kanun’un 352. maddesi uyar\u0131nca, kesin olan kararlar hakk\u0131nda Yarg\u0131tay taraf\u0131ndan temyiz isteminin reddine karar verilebilir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle, temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin miktar itibariyle reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2)Davac\u0131n\u0131n temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n incelenmesinde;<\/p>\n
Dava, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayan\u0131larak vekile kar\u015f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131lan bedel talebine ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda; daval\u0131n\u0131n, tapuda davac\u0131ya ait 851 ada 5 nolu parselde kay\u0131tl\u0131 \u00bd hisseyi davac\u0131 ad\u0131na vekaleten 287.500 TL bedelle ve di\u011fer 861 Ada 6 parselde kay\u0131tl\u0131 \u00bd hisseyi 525.000 TL bedelle \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fiye satt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin daval\u0131 vekil taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 dosyadaki sat\u0131\u015fa ili\u015fkin akit tablosundan anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. \u0130leri s\u00fcr\u00fcl\u00fc\u015f \u015fekli ve dayan\u0131lan olgular \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde, davac\u0131n\u0131n bu davadaki alacak isteminin, vekilin hesap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 davranmas\u0131 hukuksal nedenine dayand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Ger\u00e7ekten de vekil, vekaleti iyi bir surette ifa ile y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. E\u015f s\u00f6yleyi\u015fle, vekalet verenin kendisine verdi\u011fi g\u00f6revi, \u00f6zen ve sadakatle ifa etmek y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. \u00d6te yandan, vekalet verenin talebi \u00fczerine, yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu i\u015fin hesab\u0131n\u0131 vermekle, her ne nam ile olursa olsun, alm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu \u015feyi m\u00fcvekkile tediye etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Vekilin hesap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filerden ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferler dahildir. Belirtilen y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fcklere ayk\u0131r\u0131 davran\u0131lmas\u0131 halinde vekilin, vekalet verene kar\u015f\u0131, onun bu y\u00fczden u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131 tazmin y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ortaya \u00e7\u0131kaca\u011f\u0131 da \u00e7ok a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Dosyada; dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 sat\u0131n alan taraf\u0131ndan, dava konusu arsalar kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda banka yoluyla 2.151.450 TL \u00f6deme, tapu harc\u0131 olarak 88.247,50 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00bd oran\u0131nda tapu har\u00e7 ve masraf\u0131n\u0131n hisse sahiplerince \u00f6denildi\u011finin savunuldu\u011fu; buna kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k resmi sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde ise 2.200.000 TL \u00f6deme g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc tespit edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Yukar\u0131daki bilgiler do\u011frultusunda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; tapuda, davac\u0131n\u0131n hissesine d\u00fc\u015fen bedel toplam\u0131 812.500 TL olup, bu bedelden 503.600 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 bakiye 308.900 TL kald\u0131\u011f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcndedir. Vekilin hesap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bulundu\u011fundan, bu bedeli \u00f6dedi\u011fini ispat y\u00fck\u00fc, vekil olan daval\u0131dad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
O halde, b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesince; daval\u0131 vekilin, hesap verme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc yerine getirdi\u011fini ispat edemedi\u011fi g\u00f6zetilerek davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi gerekirken yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f, bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da birinci bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle daval\u0131 vekilinin temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin reddine, ikinci bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle temyiz olunan b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n HMK’n\u0131n 371. maddesi uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz har\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edenlere iadesine, HMK\u2019n\u0131n 373\/2. maddesi uyar\u0131nca dava dosyas\u0131n\u0131n karar\u0131 veren b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, 17\/11\/2021 tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 17\/11\/2021 tarihli 2021\/1739 Esas 2021\/11572 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/1739 E., 2021\/11572 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 : BEYKOZ 2. ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131nda ilk derece mahkemesinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcne dair verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm hakk\u0131nda b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan istinaf incelemesi sonucunda; daval\u0131 vekilinin istinaf ba\u015fvurusunun kabul\u00fc ile ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne dair verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekillerince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; dosya i\u00e7erisindeki b\u00fct\u00fcn ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunup gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I Davac\u0131; iki adet ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki \u00bc ve \u00bd oran\u0131ndaki paylar\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131m\u0131 i\u00e7in akrabas\u0131 olan daval\u0131ya noterde sat\u0131\u015f vekaletnamesi verdi\u011fini, hisse sat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmazlardan biri hakk\u0131nda 287.500 TL, di\u011feri hakk\u0131nda 525.000 TL toplam\u0131 812.500 TL\u2019den ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirildi\u011fi halde daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan 503.600 TL \u00f6deme yap\u0131larak bakiye 308.900 TL’nin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, daval\u0131n\u0131n vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanarak sebepsiz zenginle\u015fti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, s\u00f6z konusu bedelin sat\u0131\u015f tarihinden itibaren bankalar\u0131n ticari mevduata uygulad\u0131klar\u0131 en y\u00fcksek faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131; davac\u0131n\u0131n aldat\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f ve fiyat tart\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n evinde e\u015fi huzurunda karde\u015fler haz\u0131rken yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, emlak\u00e7\u0131n\u0131n da haz\u0131r bulundu\u011funu, davac\u0131 ve karde\u015flerine ait olup \u00bc hissedar oldu\u011fu 5 nolu parselin 800.000 TL’ye, \u00bd hissedar oldu\u011fu di\u011fer 6 nolu parseldeki bo\u015f arsa vasf\u0131ndaki 127 m\u00b2lik yerin …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n