The fact that there is a ban on forced Decrees between spouses does not prevent them from filing lawsuits against each other.ThTThe fact that there is a ban on forced Decrees between spouses does The fact that there is a The fact that there is a ban on forced Decrees between spouses does not prevent them from filing lawsuits against each other.
T.C
Supreme Court 14th Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2003/8009
Judgment Number: 2004/895
Decision Date: 17.02.2004
At the end of the reasoning made by the plaintiff’s attorney on the petition filed on 17.2.2002 against the defendants and requesting the The fact that there is a ban on forced Decrees between spouses does not prevent them from filing lawsuits against each other.
T.C
Supreme Court 14th Civil Chamber
Case Number: 2003/8009
Judgment Number: 2004/895
Decision Date: 17.02.2004
At the end of the reasoning made by the plaintiff’s attorney on the petition filed on 17.2.2002 against the defendants and requesting the cancellation of the title deed and registration; at the end of the reasoning made by the Supreme Court on 16.4.2003, the decision to dismiss the case was requested by the plaintiff’s attorney to be examined on a trial basis by the Supreme Court (….) was considered necessary.
The lawsuit relates to the cancellation of the title deed and registration request based on the claim that the real estate subject to the lawsuit, acquired with joint earnings, was sold to a third party in collusion within the marriage union.
By the court, the marriage union continues, 244 of the Civil Codehe lawsuit relates to the cancellation of the title deed and registration request based on the claim that the real estate subject to the lawsuit, acquired with joint earnings, was sold to a third party in collusion within the marriage union.
By the court, the marriage union continues, 244 of the Civil Code. according to the article, it was decided to dismiss the case on the grounds that the regime of separation of shared property between spouses was not accepted, therefore the plaintiff did not have a Deciency for active hostility.
The verdict has been appealed by the plaintiff.
The immovable property subject to the lawsuit was acquired before the date of 1.1.2002, when the Civil Law No. 4721 entered into force, and the property separation regime continues in terms of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit.vable property subject to the lawsuit was acquired before the date of 1.1.2002, when the Civil Law No. 4721 entered into force, and the property separation regime continues in terms of the immovable property subjhe immovable property subject to the lawsuit was acquired before the date of 1.1.2002, when the Civil Law No. 4721 entered into force, and the property separation regime continues in terms of the immovable property subject to the lawsuit.
Article 165 of the Civil Code No. 743 states that; although there is a prohibition on enforcement between spouses, there is no regulation stating that they cannot file a lawsuit against each other due to legal relations. In the same way, there is no prohibition to file a lawsuit in the Civil Code numbered 4721.
For the stated reason, there are opportunities to file a lawsuit due to the legal savings that the spouses have made with each other, and while a decision should be made according to the result that will be formed after all the evidence has been collected by entering the basis of the work, it was not considered correct that a written judgment was established, it required overturning.For the stated reason, there are opportunior the stated reason, there are opportunities to file a lawsuit due to the legal savings that the spouses have made with each other, and while a decision should be made according to the result that will be formed after all the evidence has been collected by ente
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.