T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2015\/9329 E., 2016\/6885 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7erisindeki 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 vekili, dava dilek\u00e7esi ile; davac\u0131n\u0131n …, …, 44710 ada 9 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 870\/6523 pay\u0131n\u0131 malik N. A.’dan 22.04.2011 tarihinde 500.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ortaklara da Yenimahalle 4.Noterli\u011finin 29.04.2011 tarih ve 9559 yevmiye nolu ihtarnamesi ile \u015fufa hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanabileceklerini bildirdi\u011fini, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan \u015fufa davas\u0131nda haks\u0131z olarak bedelde muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 522.000,00 TL de\u011ferinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin pe\u015fin para vererek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n da \u015fufa bedelini derhal vadeli hesaba depo etmesi gerekirken depo etmedi\u011fini, aradan ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre boyunca 508.250,00 TL’nin haks\u0131z olarak daval\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu, … 1.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2011\/218 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda \u015fufa bedelinin ge\u00e7 depo edilmesinin sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye neden oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek; fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere, 20.000,00 TL’nin daval\u0131dan faiziyle birlikte tahsiline karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili, cevap dilek\u00e7esi ile; sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmenin ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mahkemenin \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde bedelin depo edildi\u011fini, yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n da fiili taksim iddias\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu, mahkemece bu iddian\u0131n da ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n kabul edildi\u011fini, tescilin davac\u0131n\u0131n temyiz ve karar d\u00fczeltme talepleri nedeniyle gecikti\u011fini belirterek; davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece; Yarg\u0131tay 3.Hukuk Dairesinin 2007\/19419 Esas, 2008\/3040 Karar say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131na dayan\u0131larak, \u015fufa hakk\u0131na konu yap\u0131lan pay\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f tarihi ile paran\u0131n mahkeme veznesine depo edildi\u011fi tarih aras\u0131nda uzun bir s\u00fcrenin ge\u00e7mi\u015f olmas\u0131, bu zaman kesiti i\u00e7erisinde paran\u0131n sat\u0131n alma g\u00fcc\u00fcnde meydana gelen de\u011fer d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, davac\u0131n\u0131n nedensiz fakirle\u015fti\u011fi, zarar\u0131n \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7esi ile; davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne, 20.000 TL’nin dava tarihinden itibaren yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm, daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, daval\u0131n\u0131n payda\u015f oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 davac\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015flar\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 N.’den 22\/04\/2011 tarihinde 500.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 16\/05\/2011 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava ile taraflar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelinde muvazaa yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin \u00f6n al\u0131m davas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in dan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131 olarak y\u00fcksek g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek sat\u0131\u015f bedelini \u00f6demek ko\u015fulu ile daval\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 pay\u0131n ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkemece taraflar\u0131n bedelde muvazaa ve fiili taksim iddialar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011ferlendirilmesi i\u00e7in ke\u015fif yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, davac\u0131ya \u015fufa bedeli olan 508.250.00 TL depo etmesi i\u00e7in 2 haftal\u0131k s\u00fcre verilmi\u015f, \u015fufa bedeli verilen bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde \u00f6denmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki daval\u0131ya ait pay\u0131n tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tapuya kay\u0131t ve tesciline, \u015fufa bedeli olarak dosyada bulunan bedelin daval\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine karar verilmi\u015f, daval\u0131n\u0131n karar d\u00fczeltme talebi Y\u00fcksek Yarg\u0131tay 14.Hukuk Dairesinin 08\/05\/2014 tarih, 2014\/3602 E -2014\/6036 K.say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Sebepsiz zenginle\u015fme i\u00e7in, bir taraf zenginle\u015firken di\u011fer taraf\u0131n fakirle\u015fmesi, zenginle\u015fme ile fakirle\u015fme aras\u0131nda nedensellik ba\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmas\u0131 ve zenginle\u015fmenin hukuken ge\u00e7erli bir nedene dayal\u0131 olmamas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>\n
Sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeden s\u00f6z edebilmek, i\u00e7in \u00f6ncelikle, daval\u0131n\u0131n mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bir \u00e7o\u011falman\u0131n meydana gelmesi gerekir. Bu zenginle\u015fme, mal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n artmas\u0131 \u015feklinde olabilece\u011fi gibi, azalmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nlenmesi \u015feklinde de olabilir. Zenginle\u015fmenin miktar\u0131 istenebilecek alaca\u011f\u0131n da \u00fcst s\u0131n\u0131r\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur.<\/p>\n
Sebepsiz zenginle\u015fme; ge\u00e7erli olmayan, tahakkuk etmemi\u015f veya varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 sona ermi\u015f bir nedene ya da bor\u00e7lu olunmayan \u015feyin hata sonucu verilmesine dayal\u0131 olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilir. Sebepsiz zenginle\u015fme bunlardan hangisi yoluyla ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f olursa olsun, sebepsiz zenginle\u015fen, aleyhine zenginle\u015fti\u011fi tarafa kar\u015f\u0131 geri verme borcu alt\u0131ndad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, bu dava ile aradan ge\u00e7en zaman i\u00e7erisinde \u015fufa bedeli ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011feri aras\u0131nda fahi\u015f fark oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek, u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazminini istemi\u015ftir.
\nSomut olayda; daval\u0131 yasal hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanarak \u015fufa davas\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f, \u015fufa davas\u0131n\u0131n yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 s\u0131ras\u0131nda mahkeme taraflar\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bedelde muvazaa ve fiili taksim iddialar\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmak durumunda kalm\u0131\u015f, daval\u0131 \u00f6n al\u0131m bedelini mahkemece verilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde mahkeme veznesine depo ederek \u00f6demi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131n\u0131n \u015fufa davas\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 16\/05\/2011 tarihi ile mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi 08\/05\/2014 tarihine kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre i\u00e7inde yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzamas\u0131na neden olacak hi\u00e7 bir kusuru da yoktur. Di\u011fer anlat\u0131m ile somut olayda sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmenin ko\u015fullar\u0131 olu\u015fmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Dairemizin g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc bu y\u00f6ndedir. (3.H.D. 2015\/7480 E\u20132015\/15720 K.say\u0131l\u0131 ve 14\/10\/2015 tarihli karar\u0131).<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, an\u0131lan nedenler ile davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozma nedenidir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7: Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan esaslar g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsiz, temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu nedenlerle yerinde oldu\u011fundan kabul\u00fc ile h\u00fckm\u00fcn HUMK.nun 428.maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA ve pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 02.05.2016 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi. <\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay <\/p>\n
3. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2015\/7480 E., 2015\/15720 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 : K\u00dc\u00c7\u00dcK\u00c7EKMECE 3. ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130
\nTAR\u0130H\u0130 : 13\/03\/2014
\nNUMARASI : 2011\/685-2014\/158<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, duru\u015fmal\u0131 olarak incelenmesi daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle; taraflara yap\u0131lan tebligat \u00fczerine duru\u015fma i\u00e7in tayin olunan 21.10.2014 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde temyiz eden daval\u0131 vekili Av. \u0130.. K.. ve aleyhine temyiz olunan davac\u0131 vekili Av. A. M. geldi. Gelen vekillerin s\u00f6zl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendikten sonra nevak\u0131s\u0131n giderilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan dosya mahalline geri \u00e7evrilmi\u015f, bu kez yeniden gelmekle; belli g\u00fcn ve saatte dosyadaki b\u00fct\u00fcn ka\u011f\u0131tlar okunarak Tetkik Hakiminin a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlenip, 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 vekili dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00dclfet Baykal’dan 09\/07\/2003 tarihinde 150.00,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n alarak tapuya tescil ettirdi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n di\u011fer hissedar\u0131 olan daval\u0131 A.. D..’\u0131n \u015fufa hakk\u0131na istinaden m\u00fcvekkili aleyhine K\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck\u00e7ekmece 1.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2004\/344 E.say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131 ile a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fufa davas\u0131n\u0131n reddedildi\u011fini, karar\u0131n temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 6.Hukuk Dairesinin 2007\/6337 E.-7670 K.say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile bozuldu\u011funu, yerel mahkemece Yarg\u0131tay ilam\u0131na uyularak yeniden yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonucunda davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fini, karar\u0131n temyiz incelemesinden ge\u00e7erek onand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n \u015fufal\u0131 pay\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f tarihi olan 09\/07\/2003 tarihinden 7,5 y\u0131l sonra 10\/01\/2011 tarihinde \u015fufa bedelini mahkeme veznesine depo etti\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin \u00f6dedi\u011fi paray\u0131 7,5 y\u0131l sonra ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, m\u00fcvekkilinin 2003 y\u0131l\u0131nda 150.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n \u015fu an itibariyle 300.000,00 TL-400.000,00 TL civar\u0131nda oldu\u011funu, daval\u0131n\u0131n sebepsiz zenginle\u015firken m\u00fcvekkilinin de sebepsiz fakirle\u015fti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek, m\u00fcvekkilinin bedeli \u00f6dedi\u011fi tarih ile paran\u0131n depo edildi\u011fi tarih aras\u0131nda, objektif nedenlerle paran\u0131n de\u011ferindeki de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011fin belirlenerek m\u00fcvekkilinin u\u011fram\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu zarar\u0131n, fazlaya ili\u015fkin hakk\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak kayd\u0131 ile \u015fufa bedelinin \u00f6dendi\u011fi tarihten itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015f, \u0131slah ile talebini 219.000 TL’ye y\u00fckseltmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 dilek\u00e7esinde; a\u00e7\u0131lan davay\u0131 kabul etmedi\u011fini, taraflar aras\u0131nda \u015fufa davas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, mahkemece tayin edilen \u015fufa bedelinin depo edilerek dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tapusunun iptali ile daval\u0131 ad\u0131na tescil edildi\u011fini, taraflar aras\u0131nda kaziyeyi muhkeme oldu\u011funu, kaziyeyi muhkemenin oldu\u011fu yerde ayn\u0131 mevzu ve sebeple dava ikame edilemeyece\u011fini, \u015fufa davas\u0131nda bedelin tart\u0131\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n mahkemenin depo karar\u0131 ile 152.270 TL \u00f6dedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek davan\u0131n reddini savunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, 09.07.2003 tarihinde davac\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedeli olarak \u00f6dedi\u011fi 150.000,00 TL’n\u0131n denkle\u015ftirici adalet ilkesine g\u00f6re, paran\u0131n kendisine iade edildi\u011fi 10.01.2011 tarihine kadar aradan ge\u00e7en uzun zaman s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde paran\u0131n de\u011fi\u015fik yat\u0131r\u0131m ara\u00e7lar\u0131 ile (d\u00f6viz, faiz, alt\u0131n) de\u011ferlendirilmesi halinde \u00f6deme tarihi itibariyle 369.000,00 TL olaca\u011f\u0131, bu miktardan davac\u0131n\u0131n tahsil etti\u011fi 150.000,00 TL sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin mahsubundan sonra davac\u0131n\u0131n zarar\u0131n\u0131n 219.000,00 TL olaca\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, daval\u0131n\u0131n bu miktar kadar sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmi\u015f oldu\u011fu gerek\u00e7eleriyle 219.000 TL’n\u0131n 10.01.2011 tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte daval\u0131dan al\u0131narak davac\u0131ya verilmesine karar verilmi\u015f, h\u00fck\u00fcm daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut olayda, daval\u0131n\u0131n payda\u015f oldu\u011fu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 davac\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n payda\u015flar\u0131ndan dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00dc. B. dan 09.07.2003 tarihinde 150.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 12.05.2004 tarihinde a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 dava ile taraflar\u0131n sat\u0131\u015fta muvazaa yapt\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, ger\u00e7ek sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 50.000.000 TL oldu\u011funu, sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin \u00f6n al\u0131m davas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nlemek i\u00e7in dan\u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131 olarak y\u00fcksek g\u00f6sterildi\u011fini, sat\u0131c\u0131 payda\u015f\u0131n, pay\u0131n\u0131 sataca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kendisine bildirmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek sat\u0131\u015f bedeli ve sat\u0131\u015f giderlerini \u00f6demek ko\u015fulu ile daval\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 pay\u0131n ad\u0131na tesciline karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir. Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamada, davac\u0131ya \u015fufa bedeli ve masraflar olmak \u00fczere toplam 155.240 TL depo etmesi i\u00e7in 15 g\u00fcnl\u00fck s\u00fcre verilmi\u015f, davac\u0131 \u015fufa bedelini verilen bu s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde yat\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece de ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki daval\u0131ya ait paya y\u00f6nelik tapu kayd\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tapuya kay\u0131t ve tesciline, \u015fufa bedeli olarak dosyaya sunulan teminat mektubunun kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan bedelin daval\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine karar verilmi\u015f, karar daval\u0131n\u0131n karar d\u00fczeltme talebi Y\u00fcksek Yarg\u0131tay 6. Hukuk Dairesinin 25.11.2010 g\u00fcn, 2010\/11392 E.-12880 say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile reddedilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131, bu dava ile aradan ge\u00e7en zaman i\u00e7erisinde \u015fufa bedeli ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n de\u011feri aras\u0131nda fahi\u015f fark oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 zarar\u0131n tazminini istemi\u015ftir.
\nDavac\u0131n\u0131n, hem yasal hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanarak a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fufa davas\u0131 nedeniyle hem de \u015fufa davas\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 12.05.2004 tarihi ile mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n kesinle\u015fti\u011fi tarihe kadar ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre\u00e7 i\u00e7erisinde, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n uzun s\u00fcrmesinde, daval\u0131n\u0131n bir kusuru olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, daval\u0131 \u00f6n al\u0131m bedelini de mahkemece verilen s\u00fcre i\u00e7erisinde teminat mektubu olarak mahkeme veznesine depo ederek yat\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kald\u0131 ki bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te davac\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 da iddia edilmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Hal b\u00f6yle olunca, mahkemece davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015f olmas\u0131 usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 olup, bozma nedenidir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7; Yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan esaslar g\u00f6z\u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmaks\u0131z\u0131n yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi isabetsiz, temyiz itirazlar\u0131 bu nedenlerle yerinde oldu\u011fundan kabul\u00fc ile h\u00fckm\u00fcn HUMK.nun 428.maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA, Yarg\u0131tay duru\u015fmas\u0131nda vekille temsil edilen daval\u0131 taraf i\u00e7in duru\u015fma tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan Avukatl\u0131k Asgari \u00dccret Tarifesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re takdir edilen 1.100 TL vekalet \u00fccretinin davac\u0131dan al\u0131n\u0131p daval\u0131 tarafa verilmesine ve pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde temyiz edene iadesine, 14.10.2015 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 2015\/9329 E. 2016\/6885 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 2015\/7480 E., 2015\/15720 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 3. Hukuk Dairesi 2015\/9329 E., 2016\/6885 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” MAHKEMES\u0130 :ASL\u0130YE HUKUK MAHKEMES\u0130 Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki tazminat davas\u0131n\u0131n mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonucunda, davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn, s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine; temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildikten sonra, dosya i\u00e7erisindeki 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 vekili, dava dilek\u00e7esi ile; davac\u0131n\u0131n …, …, 44710 ada 9 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 870\/6523 pay\u0131n\u0131 malik N. A.’dan 22.04.2011 tarihinde 500.000,00 TL bedelle sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ortaklara da Yenimahalle 4.Noterli\u011finin 29.04.2011 tarih ve 9559 yevmiye nolu ihtarnamesi ile \u015fufa hakk\u0131n\u0131 kullanabileceklerini bildirdi\u011fini, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n aleyhine a\u00e7\u0131lan \u015fufa davas\u0131nda haks\u0131z olarak bedelde muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131n ileri s\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc, yap\u0131lan bilirki\u015fi incelemesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f bedelinin 522.000,00 TL de\u011ferinde bulundu\u011funun tespit edildi\u011fini, m\u00fcvekkilinin pe\u015fin para vererek ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 sat\u0131n ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n da \u015fufa bedelini derhal vadeli hesaba depo etmesi gerekirken depo etmedi\u011fini, aradan ge\u00e7en s\u00fcre boyunca 508.250,00 TL’nin haks\u0131z olarak daval\u0131 yan\u0131nda bulundu\u011funu, … 1.Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 2011\/218 Esas say\u0131l\u0131 dosyas\u0131nda \u015fufa bedelinin ge\u00e7 depo edilmesinin sebepsiz zenginle\u015fmeye neden oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrerek; fazlaya ili\u015fkin haklar\u0131 sakl\u0131 kalmak \u00fczere, 20.000,00 TL’nin daval\u0131dan faiziyle birlikte tahsiline karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir. Daval\u0131 vekili, …<\/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-85651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n