T..C. Supreme Court
3.law office
Based on: 2013T.C. SuprT.C. Supreme Court
3.law office
Based on: 2013/900
Decision: 2013/2605
Date of Decision: 19.02.2013
REQUEST FOR THE RETURN OF ENGAGEMENT GIFTS – THE REQUIREMENT THAT UNUSUAL GIFTS BE RETURNED IN KIND IF THEY ARE NOT AVAILABLE – THAT ALL GOLD JEWELRY AND TRAPPINGS OTHER THAN THE ENGAGEMENT RING ARE OUT–OF-DATE GIFTS – VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
SUMMARY: The plaintiff has requested and sued for the collection of the engagement gifts from the defendant in kind, or if not possible, for the amount of … TL. plus legal interestUMMARY: The plaintiff has requested and sued for the collection of the engagement gifts from the defendant in kind, or if not possible, for the amount of … TL. plus legal interest. If the engagement is broken, the unusual gifts are given back in kind, in the same way if they are not available, or in return they are asked back according to the rules of enrichment for no reason. According to the established practices of the Court of Cassation, all gold, jewelry and trappings other than the engagement ring have been accepted as an unusual gift. However, while the court should have decided to return the fixed menstrual watch worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, the verdict required to disrupt the facility as a result of a mistaken assessment.However, while the court should have decided to return the fixed menstrual watch worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, the verdict required to disrupt the facility as a result of a mistaken assessment.
Case: In owever, while the court should have decided to return the fixed menstrual watch worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, the verdict required to disrupt the facility as a result of a mistaken assessment.
Case: In the petition of the case, the plaintiff requested the return of the engagement gifts of 25,169 TL from the other party, and in the counterclaim, 500 TL material and 15,000 TL moral damages, together with interest and expenses, to be collected from the defendant party. The court partially accepted the main case and rejected the counterclaim due to the statute of limitations, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff.
After it was understood that the request for appeal was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered necessaryAfter it was understood that the request for appeal was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney stated in his petition that his client, the plaintiff, and the defendant got engaged, but that this engagement was broken After it was understood that the request for appeal was within the time limit, all the papers in the file were read and considered necessary:
Decision: The plaintiff’s attorney stated in his petition that his client, the plaintiff, and the defendant got engaged, but that this engagement was broken off as a result of the defendant’s unfair actions, and that the engagement gifts should be returned in kind, or if not, their value of 25,169 TL.he requested and sued for a decision to be made to collect from the defendant together with the legal interest of .
The defendant party, on the other hand, 5.000 TL due to the unjustified breakdown of the engagement with the reciprocal lawsuit he filed. the plaintiff requested that a decision be made to collect the financial and moral compensation of TL 15,000 from the defendant in return.The defendant party, on the other hand, 5.000 TL due to the unjustified breakdown of the engagement with the reciprocal lawsuit he filed. the plaintiff requested that a decision be made to collect the financial and moral compensation of TL 15,000 from the defendant in return.
By the court, with the he defendant party, on the other hand, 5.000 TL due to the unjustified breakdown of the engagement with the reciprocal lawsuit he filed. the plaintiff requested that a decision be made to collect the financial and moral compensation of TL 15,000 from the defendant in return.
By the court, with the partial acceptance of the main case, the engagement gifts are 12,466 TL, which is the price in case they are not in kind.it was decided to collect from the defendant and to reject the case in return due to the statute of limitations, and the verdict was appealed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s other appeals are not in place.
However: in the concrete case, 2 pieces of <fossil> brand watches worn by the plaintiff to the defendant’s fiancée as an engagement gift were considered <usual gift> by the court and it was decided to reject the return request.
T.M.K.According to article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, the unusual gifts that the engaged parties have given to each other can be requested.M.K.According to article 122 of the Turkish Civil Code, if the engagement ends for a reason other than marriage, the unusual gifts that the engaged parties have given to each other can be requested back. According to this article, defects are not sought in cases regarding the return of out-of-ordinary gifts due to the breakdown of the engagement. If the engagement is broken, the unusual gifts are given back in kind, in the same way if they are not available, or in return they are asked back according to the rules of enrichment for no reason.
Among the usual (usual) gifts, the intention is to wear, use, old and consumed items. As a rule, what gets old and consumed by wearing, using (clothes, shoes, etc. as such) the return of items cannot be decided.ong the usual (usual) gifts, the intention is to wear, use, old and consumed items. As a rule, what gets old and consumed by wearing, using (clothes, shoes, etc. as such) the return of items cannot be decided.
According to the established practices of the Court of Cassation, all gold, jewelry and trappings other than the engagement ring have been accepted as an unusual gift.
If so, the court should have decided to return 2 fixed watches worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, but as a result of the erroneous assessment, the written judgment required to disrupt the facility.If so, the court should have decided to return 2 fixed watches worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, but as a result of the erroneous assessment, the written judgment required tIf so, the court should have decided to return 2 fixed watches worn by the plaintiff’s fiancée to the defendant in accordance with these principles and principles, but as a result of the erroneous assessment, the written judgment required to disrupt the facility.
Conclusion: In this regard, the judgment was rendered in writing without taking into consideration the principles explained above, and is inadmissible. The appeal objections are accepted for these reasons, and the judgment is annulled in H.U.M.K.nun 428. it was decided unanimously on 19.02.2013 that the appeal fee received in advance should be overturned in accordance with the article and returned to the appellant if requested.
Tags: customary gift, marriage promise, unusual gift, engagement, return
You can read our other articles and petition examples by clinking here.