T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
1. Hukuk Dairesi <\/p>\n
2021\/2088 E., 2021\/4358 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : SAKARYA B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 1. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130
\nDAVALILAR : … VD.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 sonunda, yerel mahkemece vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispat edilemedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin verilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusu Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan k\u0131smen kabul edilerek, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p; tapu iptal tescil iste\u011finin reddine, daval\u0131 … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin olarak verilen karar davac\u0131 vekili ve daval\u0131 … vekili taraf\u0131ndan yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla dosya incelendi, Tetkik Hakimi …’in raporu okundu, a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendi, gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc;<\/p>\n
-KARAR-<\/p>\n
Dava, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuki nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil, olmazsa bedel iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir.
\nDavac\u0131, ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 1196 ada 1, 1237 ada 2, 10144 ada 44 ve 2146 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin olarak daval\u0131 eski e\u015fi Haldun\u2019u vekil tayin etti\u011fini, vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanarak bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 \u015fimdiki e\u015finin annesi olan daval\u0131 …\u2019e devretti\u011fini, kand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenince vekili azletti\u011fini, sat\u0131\u015f bedelini istedi\u011fini ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan oyaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6te yandan sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferin alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek, tapu iptali ve tescil, olmazsa faiziyle birlikte bedel istemi\u015ftir.
\nDaval\u0131 …, dava de\u011ferine itiraz etmi\u015f, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 iyi niyetle sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n asl\u0131nda di\u011fer daval\u0131 …\u2019a ait oldu\u011funu, dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 o\u011flu ile olan ticari ili\u015fkileri nedeniyle borca mahsuben ad\u0131na tescil edildi\u011fini; daval\u0131 …, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n evveliyat\u0131nda inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem ile davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edildi\u011fini, vekaletnamenin sat\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in verildi\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n temliklerden haberdar oldu\u011funu, eldeki davan\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olarak a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f i\u015fleminin davac\u0131n\u0131n bilgisi ve iste\u011fi dahilinde yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bedelini de ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispat edilemedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin verilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusu Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1.Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan k\u0131smen kabul edilerek, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n kald\u0131r\u0131larak; tapu iptal tescil iste\u011finin reddine, davac\u0131n\u0131n talebiyle ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak 20.000,00 TL\u2019nin sat\u0131\u015f tarihi olan 10\/12\/2012 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131 vekilden tahsiline karar verilmi\u015f, karar\u0131n davac\u0131 … ve daval\u0131 … taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Dairece, \u201cDaval\u0131 …\u2019un dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ger\u00e7ekte kendisine ait oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in devir i\u015flemlerini yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem savunmas\u0131nda bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ger\u00e7ekten de, daval\u0131 …\u2019un inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flemin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat etmesi halinde vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131ndan bahsedilemeyece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Daval\u0131 … bu savunmas\u0131n\u0131 ispat a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan dosyaya yaz\u0131l\u0131 bir delil sunmam\u0131\u015fsa da delil listesinde yemin deliline dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Ne var ki; b\u00f6lge adliye mahkemesi taraf\u0131ndan an\u0131lan savunman\u0131n ba\u015fka bir dava konusunu te\u015fkil edece\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle bu savunmaya itibar edilmeden sonuca gidilmesi hatal\u0131 olmu\u015ftur. Hal b\u00f6yle olunca; daval\u0131 vekil Haldun\u2019un dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara y\u00f6nelik inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flem savunmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin yemin delili hat\u0131rlat\u0131lmas\u0131 ve sonucuna g\u00f6re bir karar verilmesi gerekirken eksik inceleme ile yetinilerek yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u00fczere karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 do\u011fru de\u011fildir.\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle bozulmu\u015f, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince bozma ilam\u0131na uyularak yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda daval\u0131 …\u2019in iyi niyetli oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7esiyle tapu iptal tescil iste\u011finin reddine, vekaletnamenin sat\u0131\u015f i\u00e7in verildi\u011finin anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n savc\u0131l\u0131ktaki dosyada daval\u0131 vekilden 100.000,00TL alaca\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcnde beyan\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, vekilin bu bedeli \u00f6dedi\u011fini ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, vekilin \u00f6ncesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 inan\u00e7l\u0131 i\u015flemle davac\u0131ya devretti\u011fi savunmas\u0131n\u0131n eldeki davada dinlenme olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, daval\u0131 … vekilinin yemin deliline dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan etti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle, davac\u0131n\u0131n bedele ili\u015fkin talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden davac\u0131n\u0131n talebiyle ba\u011fl\u0131 kal\u0131narak 20.000,00 TL\u2019nin sat\u0131\u015f tarihi olan 10\/12\/2012 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131 vekilden tahsiline karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Dosya i\u00e7eri\u011fi ve toplanan delillerden, 1970 do\u011fumlu Kader ile 1962 do\u011fumlu daval\u0131 …\u2019un 27.07.1986 tarihinde evlenip, 19.11.1990 tarihinde bo\u015fand\u0131klar\u0131, bo\u015fanmadan sonra m\u00fc\u015fterek 1992 ve 1999 do\u011fumlu \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n\u0131n oldu\u011fu, Haldun\u2019un 11.08.1992 tarihinde di\u011fer daval\u0131 …\u2019in k\u0131z\u0131 olan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 M\u00fcjde ile evlendi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n Kad\u0131k\u00f6y 8.Noterli\u011finin 07\/12\/2012 tarih 23011 yevmiye numaral\u0131 vekaletnamesi ile davaya konu 2146 parsel, 1237 ada 2, 1196 ada 1, 10144 ada 44 ve 7057 ada 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 diledi\u011fine diledi\u011fi bedelle satmak, sat\u0131\u015f bedelini almak \u00fczere eski e\u015fi daval\u0131 …\u2019u vekil tayin etti\u011fi, vekaletnamenin tevkil yetkisini de i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, Haldun ayn\u0131 yetkileri i\u00e7eren Gebze 4. Noterli\u011fine ait 10\/12\/2012 tarih 248855 yevmiye numaral\u0131 vekaletname ile dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00dcmit\u2019i tevkil etti\u011fi, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli 1196 ada 1 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz evveliyat\u0131nda ABB Denizcilik \u015eT\u0130\u2019ye ait iken \u015firket yetkilisi Haldun taraf\u0131ndan 05\/04\/2002 tarihinde davac\u0131ya devredildi\u011fi; 2146 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki 9 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme ait 48\/576 arsa pay\u0131 daval\u0131 …\u2019a ait iken bu pay\u0131n 15\/12\/2005 tarihinde davac\u0131ya devredildi\u011fi; 10144 ada 44 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda davac\u0131 ve daval\u0131 … 1\/2\u2019\u015fer payda\u015f iken Haldun\u2019a ait pay\u0131n 15\/12\/2005 tarihinde davac\u0131ya sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, 1237 ada 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki 1 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm evveliyat\u0131nda dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Remzi ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 iken 27\/09\/2000 tarihinde davac\u0131ya devredildi\u011fi, davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan edinilen davaya konu 1196 ada 1 parsel, 10144 ada 44 parsel ve 2146 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki 9 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmden te\u015fekk\u00fcl eden 3 par\u00e7a ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n daha sonra davac\u0131ya vekaleten Haldun taraf\u0131ndan 10\/12\/2012 tarihli resmi senet ile \u00fczerindeki ipoteklerle birlikte s\u0131ras\u0131yla 316.000,00 TL, 76.000,00 TL ve 28.500,00 TL bedellerle daval\u0131 …\u2019e devredildi\u011fi, M\u00fczeyyen\u2019in ise 1196 ada 1 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 16\/08\/2016 tarihinde dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Ertal\u2019a; 2146 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki 9 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc 18\/07\/2014 tarihinde dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Aleyd\u2019e devretti\u011fi, 10144 ada 44 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n halen daval\u0131 … ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 oldu\u011fu, 1237 ada 2 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki 1 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn ise davac\u0131 vekilleri \u00dcmit ve Haldun taraf\u0131ndan 11\/12\/2012 tarihinde \u00fczerindeki hacizlerle birlikte 161.900,00 TL bedelle dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 Metin\u2019e devredildi\u011fi, Gebze Cumhuriyet Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131’n\u0131n bir ba\u015fka konu ile ilgili 2014\/21092 soru\u015fturma say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda; davac\u0131 …\u2019in 17\/12\/2014 tarihli ifadesinde \u00f6zetle; “Bo\u015fanma sonras\u0131 kar\u0131-koca olarak g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeye devam ettik. \u00dczerimdeki daha do\u011frusu ortak mallar\u0131m\u0131z\u0131n idaresi konusunda ben kendisine Kad\u0131k\u00f6y 8. Noterli\u011fi’nden 07\/12\/2012 tarihinde vekaletname verdim. Bu vekaletnameye dayanarak Haldun Birkan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 ayn\u0131 g\u00fcn yapm\u0131\u015f ve mallar\u0131 kay\u0131nvalidesi …’\u0131n \u00fczerine ge\u00e7irmi\u015ftir. Ben bu vekaletnameyi verirken kendisi bana sat\u0131\u015ftan 100.000,00 TL kadar para verece\u011fini ayr\u0131ca 3 \u00e7ocu\u011fumuza da bakaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemi\u015fti. Sat\u0131\u015f sonras\u0131 bana para vermedi\u011fi gibi \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n bak\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 da y\u00fcklenmedi. Ben de bu nedenle kendisine azlettim.” \u015feklinde beyan\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, mahallinde yap\u0131lan ke\u015fif sonucu ald\u0131r\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi raporuna g\u00f6re davaya konu 1196 ada 1 numaral\u0131 parselin bo\u015f arsa g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcml\u00fc oldu\u011fu, 1237 ada 2 numaral\u0131 parsel B blok zemin 1.kat 1 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn villa niteli\u011finde oldu\u011fu, eski parsel numaras\u0131 10144 olan yeni parsel numaras\u0131 2501 ada 6 numaral\u0131 parsel olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n otel binas\u0131 oldu\u011funu, eski parsel numaras\u0131 2146 olan yeni parsel numaras\u0131 2501 ada 8 numaral\u0131 parsel olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bina \u015feklinde oldu\u011fu, dava tarihi itibari ile davaya konu 1196 ada 1 numaral\u0131 parselin 1.836.000,00 TL, 1237 ada 2 numaral\u0131 parseldeki B blok zemin 1.kat 1 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn de\u011ferinin 920.000,00 TL, eski parsel numaras\u0131 10144 olup yeni parsel numaras\u0131 2501 ada 6 numaral\u0131 parsel olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin 3.250.000,00 TL oldu\u011fu, eski parsel numaras\u0131 2146 ada 9 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm olan yeni parsel numaras\u0131 2501 ada 8 numaral\u0131 parsel olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011ferinin 550.000,00 TL oldu\u011fu davaya konu t\u00fcm ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n dava tarihi itibari ile de\u011ferlerinin 6.556.000,00 TL oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bilindi\u011fi \u00fczere, Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun temsil ve vekalet aktini d\u00fczenleyen h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re, vekalet s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 g\u00fcvenine dayan\u0131r. Vekilin bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7o\u011fu bu g\u00fcven unsurundan, onun vekil edenin yarar\u0131na ve iradesine uygun davran\u0131\u015f y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden do\u011far. 6098 s. T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanununda (TBK) sadakat ve \u00f6zen borcu, vekilin vekil edene kar\u015f\u0131 en \u00f6nde gelen borcu kabul edilmi\u015f ve 506. maddesinde (818 s. Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 390.) maddesinde aynen; “Vekil, vek\u00e2let borcunu bizzat ifa etmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Ancak vekile yetki verildi\u011fi veya durumun zorunlu ya da team\u00fcl\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2llerde vekil, i\u015fi ba\u015fkas\u0131na yapt\u0131rabilir. Vekil \u00fcstlendi\u011fi i\u015f ve hizmetleri, vek\u00e2let verenin hakl\u0131 menfaatlerini g\u00f6zeterek, sadakat ve \u00f6zenle y\u00fcr\u00fctmekle y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Vekilin \u00f6zen borcundan do\u011fan sorumlulu\u011funun belirlenmesinde, benzer alanda i\u015f ve hizmetleri \u00fcstlenen basiretli bir vekilin g\u00f6stermesi gereken davran\u0131\u015f esas al\u0131n\u0131r.” h\u00fckm\u00fcne yer verilmi\u015ftir. Bu itibarla vekil, vekil edenin yarar\u0131na ve iradesine uygun hareket etme, onu zararland\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 davran\u0131\u015flardan ka\u00e7\u0131nma y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc alt\u0131ndad\u0131r. Vek\u00e2letin kapsam\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6sterilmemi\u015fse, g\u00f6r\u00fclecek i\u015fin niteli\u011fine g\u00f6re belirlenir. (TBK’nin 504\/1) S\u00f6zle\u015fmede vekaletin nas\u0131l yerine getirilece\u011fi hakk\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131k bir h\u00fck\u00fcm bulunmasa veya yap\u0131lan i\u015flem d\u0131\u015f temsil yetkisinin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde kalsa dahi vekilin bu y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc daima mevcuttur. Hatta malik taraf\u0131ndan vekilin bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131nda, diledi\u011fi bedelle diledi\u011fi kimseye sat\u0131\u015f yapabilece\u011fi \u015feklinde yetkili k\u0131l\u0131nmas\u0131, sataca\u011f\u0131 kimseyi dahi belirtmesi, ona d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131n\u0131, sadakat ve \u00f6zen borcunu g\u00f6z ard\u0131 etmek suretiyle, makul say\u0131lacak \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcler d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131karak sat\u0131\u015f yapma hakk\u0131n\u0131 vermez. Vekil edenin yarar\u0131 ile ba\u011fda\u015fmayacak bir eylem veya i\u015flem yapan vekil de\u011finilen maddenin son f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca sorumlu olur. Bu sorumluluk BK’de daha hafif olan i\u015f\u00e7inin sorumlulu\u011funa k\u0131yasen belirlenirken, TBK’de benzer alanda i\u015f ve hizmetleri \u00fcslenen basiretli bir vekilin sorumlulu\u011fu esas al\u0131narak daha da a\u011f\u0131rla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Vekil ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapan ki\u015fi 4721 s. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu’nun (TMK) 3. maddesi anlam\u0131nda iyi niyetli ise yani vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bilmiyor veya kendisinden beklenen \u00f6zeni g\u00f6stermesine ra\u011fmen bilmesine olanak yoksa, vekil ile yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fme ge\u00e7erlidir ve vekil edeni ba\u011flar. Vekil vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullansa dahi bu husus vekil ile vekalet eden aras\u0131nda bir i\u00e7 sorun olarak kal\u0131r, vekil ile s\u00f6zle\u015fme yapan ki\u015finin kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 haklara etkili olamaz.<\/p>\n
Ne var ki, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi vekil ile \u00e7\u0131kar ve i\u015fbirli\u011fi i\u00e7erisinde ise veya k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetli olup vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 biliyor veya bilmesi gerekiyorsa vekil edenin s\u00f6zle\u015fme ile ba\u011fl\u0131 say\u0131lmamas\u0131, TMK’nin 2. maddesinde yaz\u0131l\u0131 d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck kural\u0131n\u0131n do\u011fal bir sonucu olarak kabul edilmelidir. S\u00f6z konusu yasa maddesi buyurucu nitelik ta\u015f\u0131d\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan hakim taraf\u0131ndan kendili\u011finden (resen) g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 zorunludur. Aksine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce k\u00f6t\u00fc niyeti te\u015fvik etmek en az\u0131ndan ona g\u00f6z yummak olur. Oysa b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f hukuk sistemlerinde k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet korunmam\u0131\u015f daima mahkum edilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim uygulama ve bilimsel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler bu y\u00f6nde geli\u015fmi\u015f ve kararl\u0131l\u0131k kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
TMK 6. maddesinde; “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 ispatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr”, HMK 190\/1. maddesinde; “\u0130spat y\u00fck\u00fc, kanunda \u00f6zel bir d\u00fczenleme bulunmad\u0131k\u00e7a, iddia edilen vakaya ba\u011flanan hukuki sonu\u00e7tan kendi lehine hak \u00e7\u0131karan tarafa aittir ” d\u00fczenlemeleri yer almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bununla birlikte; hukukumuzda, di\u011fer \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f hukuk sistemlerinde oldu\u011fu gibi ki\u015filerin huzur ve g\u00fcven i\u00e7erisinde al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fte bulunmalar\u0131, sat\u0131n ald\u0131klar\u0131 \u015feylerin ilerde kendilerinden al\u0131nabilece\u011fi endi\u015felerini ta\u015f\u0131mamalar\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla toplum d\u00fczenini sa\u011flamak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesiyle, alan ki\u015finin iyi niyetinin korunmas\u0131 ilkesi kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Bu ama\u00e7la 4721 s. T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanununun (TMK) 2. maddesinin genel h\u00fckm\u00fc yan\u0131nda menkul mallarda 988 ve 989., tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesinde ise 1023. maddesinin \u00f6zel h\u00fck\u00fcmleri getirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
\u00d6te yandan, bir devleti olu\u015fturan unsurlardan biri insan unsuru ise bunun kadar \u00f6nemli olan \u00f6tekisi toprakt\u0131r. \u0130\u015fte bu nedenle Devlet, n\u00fcfus sicilleri gibi tapu sicillerinin de tutulmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcstlenmi\u015f, bunlar\u0131n alenili\u011fini (herkese a\u00e7\u0131k olmas\u0131n\u0131) sa\u011flam\u0131\u015f, iyi ve do\u011fru tutulmamas\u0131ndan do\u011fan sorumlulu\u011fu kabul etmi\u015f, de\u011finilen t\u00fcm bu sebeplerin do\u011fal sonucu olarak da tapuya itimat edip, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz mal edinen ki\u015finin iyi niyetini korumak zorunlulu\u011funu duymu\u015ftur. Belirtilen ilke TMK’nin 1023. maddesinde aynen “tapu k\u00fct\u00fc\u011f\u00fcndeki sicile iyi niyetle dayanarak m\u00fclkiyet veya ba\u015fka bir ayni hak kazanan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015finin bu kazan\u0131m\u0131 korunur” \u015feklinde yer alm\u0131\u015f, ayn\u0131 ilke tamamlay\u0131c\u0131 madde niteli\u011findeki 1024.maddenin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131na g\u00f6re “Bir ayni hak yolsuz olarak tescil edilmi\u015f ise bunu bilen veya bilmesi gereken \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi bu tescile dayanamaz” bi\u00e7iminde \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
Ne var ki; tapulu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n intikallerinde, huzur ve g\u00fcveni koruma, toplum d\u00fczenini sa\u011flama u\u011fruna, tapu kayd\u0131nda ismi ge\u00e7meyen ama as\u0131l malik olan\u0131n hakk\u0131 feda edildi\u011finden iktisapta bulunan ki\u015finin, iyi niyetli olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tam olarak tespiti b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. Ger\u00e7ekten bir yanda tapu sicilinin do\u011frulu\u011funa inanarak iktisapta bulundu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcren kimse di\u011fer yanda ise kendisi i\u00e7in maddi, hatta baz\u0131 hallerde manevi b\u00fcy\u00fck de\u011fer ta\u015f\u0131yan ayni hakk\u0131n\u0131 yitirme tehlikesi ile kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya kalan \u00f6nceki malik bulunmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenle, y\u00fczeysel ve \u015fekilci bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma ve yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fck ma\u011fduriyetlere yol a\u00e7aca\u011f\u0131, ki\u015filerin Devlete ve adalete olan g\u00fcven ve sayg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 sarsaca\u011f\u0131 ve yasa koyucunun amac\u0131n\u0131n ilk bak\u0131\u015fta, \u015feklen iyi niyetli g\u00f6z\u00fckeni de\u011fil, ger\u00e7ekten iyiniyetli olan ki\u015fiyi korumak oldu\u011fu hususlar\u0131n\u0131n daima g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131, bu y\u00f6nde t\u00fcm delillerin toplan\u0131p derinli\u011fine irdelenmesi ve de\u011ferlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>\n
Nitekim bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ften hareketle, “k\u00f6t\u00fc niyet iddias\u0131n\u0131n def’i de\u011fil itiraz oldu\u011fu, iddia ve m\u00fcdafaan\u0131n geni\u015fletilmesi yasa\u011f\u0131na tabi olmaks\u0131z\u0131n her zaman ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilece\u011fi ve mahkemece kendili\u011finden (resen) nazara al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131\u201d ilkeleri 8.11.1991 tarih l990\/4 esas l99l\/3 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda kabul edilmi\u015f, bilimsel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler de ayn\u0131 do\u011frultuda geli\u015fmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut olaya gelince, davac\u0131n\u0131n soru\u015fturma dosyas\u0131ndaki beyanlar\u0131 ve t\u00fcm dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re vekaletin daval\u0131 …’a sat\u0131\u015f iradesiyle verildi\u011fi ve bu iradeye uygun olarak kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, ba\u015fka bir ifadeyle vekilin ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 vekil edenin iradesine uygun olarak satt\u0131\u011f\u0131, ne var ki ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedellerinin vekil edene \u00f6dendi\u011finin ispat edilemedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan ilkelerle birlikte de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde vekilin, vekil edeni zararland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna var\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedelinden sorumlu tutulmas\u0131 do\u011frudur. Bu nedenle daval\u0131 … vekilinin t\u00fcm, davac\u0131 vekilinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan di\u011fer temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden reddine.<\/p>\n
Ne var ki, davac\u0131 dava dilek\u00e7esinde ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n tapular\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile ad\u0131na tescilini, olmazsa ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bedellerinin daval\u0131lardan tahsilini talep etmi\u015ftir. Her ne kadar Mahkemece dava dilek\u00e7esinde dava de\u011feri olarak g\u00f6sterilen de\u011fer esas al\u0131narak karar verilmi\u015f ise de, Mahkemece dava tarihi itibariyle ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n de\u011feri ke\u015ffen belirlendi\u011fi ve tamamlama harc\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden adli yard\u0131m iste\u011fi kabul edildi\u011fi i\u00e7in bedele ili\u015fkin \u0131slah ya da talep a\u00e7\u0131klatt\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131na ihtiya\u00e7 bulunmamaktad\u0131r.
\nHal b\u00f6yle olunca, ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131n ke\u015ffen belirlenen bedelinin vekil olan daval\u0131 …\u2019dan tahsiline karar verilmesi gerekirken yan\u0131lg\u0131l\u0131 de\u011ferlendirme ile yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde karar verilmesi isabetsizdir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131n\u0131n yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile 6100 Say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun 371\/1-a maddesi uyar\u0131nca Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Hukuk Dairesi karar\u0131n\u0131n BOZULMASINA, HMK\u2019n\u0131n 373\/2. maddesi gere\u011fince dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Hukuk Dairesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, al\u0131nan pe\u015fin harc\u0131n temyiz edenlere geri verilmesine, 20\/09\/2021 tarihinde kesin olmak \u00fczere oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 1. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 20\/09\/2021 tarihli 2021\/2088 Esas 2021\/4358 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 1. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/2088 E., 2021\/4358 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 : SAKARYA B\u00d6LGE ADL\u0130YE MAHKEMES\u0130 1. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130 DAVALILAR : … VD. Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 sonunda, yerel mahkemece vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 iddias\u0131n\u0131n ispat edilemedi\u011fi gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin verilen karara kar\u015f\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 istinaf ba\u015fvurusu Sakarya B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 1. Hukuk Dairesi taraf\u0131ndan k\u0131smen kabul edilerek, ilk derece mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p; tapu iptal tescil iste\u011finin reddine, daval\u0131 … y\u00f6n\u00fcnden tazminat talebinin kabul\u00fcne ili\u015fkin olarak verilen karar davac\u0131 vekili ve daval\u0131 … vekili taraf\u0131ndan yasal s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde temyiz edilmi\u015f olmakla dosya incelendi, Tetkik Hakimi …’in raporu okundu, a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendi, gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc; -KARAR- Dava, vekalet g\u00f6revinin k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131lmas\u0131 hukuki nedenine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil, olmazsa bedel iste\u011fine ili\u015fkindir. Davac\u0131, ad\u0131na kay\u0131tl\u0131 1196 ada 1, 1237 ada 2, 10144 ada 44 ve 2146 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazlara ili\u015fkin olarak daval\u0131 eski e\u015fi Haldun\u2019u vekil tayin etti\u011fini, vekilin vekalet g\u00f6revini k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanarak bu ta\u015f\u0131nmazlar\u0131 \u015fimdiki e\u015finin annesi olan daval\u0131 …\u2019e devretti\u011fini, kand\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frenince vekili azletti\u011fini, sat\u0131\u015f bedelini istedi\u011fini ancak daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan oyaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, \u00f6te yandan sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferin alt\u0131nda oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek, tapu iptali ve tescil, olmazsa faiziyle birlikte bedel istemi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 …, dava de\u011ferine …<\/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-56626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n