{"id":14186,"date":"2022-09-25T00:05:20","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T21:05:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/?p=14186"},"modified":"2022-10-19T21:17:51","modified_gmt":"2022-10-19T18:17:51","slug":"yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/","title":{"rendered":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;<\/span><\/h1><\/h2>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin\nifa olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda;\nta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 lehine tescil edilemez.\nVaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 aynen ifa yerine ilgili kanun uyar\u0131nca,\nTAZM\u0130NAT TALEP EDEB\u0130L\u0130R.\n<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
T.C
YARGITAY
HUKUK GENEL KURULU<\/h5>
ESAS NO: 2017\/1755<\/h5>
KARAR NO: 2020\/964<\/h5>
MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi<\/h5>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

1-) Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescil, tazminat\u201d davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda, Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesince verilen davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin karar davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesince yap\u0131lan inceleme sonunda bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

2-) Direnme karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

3-) Hukuk Genel Kurulunca dosyadaki belgeler incelendikten sonra gere\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

I. YARGILAMA S\u00dcREC\u0130<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Davac\u0131 \u0130stemi:\n<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

4-) Davac\u0131 vekili 26.12.2011 tarihli dava dilek\u00e7esinde; \u00e7eki\u015fmeli \u0130stanbul ili, Beykoz il\u00e7esi, Anadoluhisar\u0131 Mah. Bent Yolu mevkiinde kain 48 ada 1 parsel say\u0131l\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmazda daval\u0131ya ait binada yola g\u00f6re arka tarafta bulunan ve G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan 8 numaral\u0131 daireye ili\u015fkin hak ve hissenin Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011finin 07.07.1993 tarihli ve 07914 yevmiye numaral\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile \u2026\u2019a, \u2026 taraf\u0131ndan da Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011finin 09.04.1999 tarihli ve 03415 yevmiye numaral\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde devir s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile m\u00fcvekkiline devredildi\u011fini, hisse bedelinin tamam\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya \u00f6dendi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek daval\u0131ya ait ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka tarafta bulunan 8 numaral\u0131 daireye ait hissenin tamam\u0131n\u0131n iptali ile davac\u0131 ad\u0131na tesciline, tescil talebinin kabul edilmemesi h\u00e2linde d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine konu 8 numaral\u0131 dairenin arsa pay\u0131 ile rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferinin dava tarihinden itibaren i\u015fleyecek yasal faizi ile birlikte davac\u0131ya \u00f6denmesine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131:\n<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

5-) Daval\u0131 24.01.2012 havale tarihli cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile ileride ifraz edilerek m\u00fcstakil tapu verilmesi ve kat m\u00fclkiyeti\/kat irtifak\u0131 kurulmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde fera\u011f verece\u011fini taahh\u00fct etti\u011fini, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli parselin \u00e7ok hisseli olup ifraz yap\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fera\u011f verebilmek i\u00e7in belediyeye yap\u0131lan m\u00fcraacatlar\u0131n da sonu\u00e7suz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fera\u011f verilememesinde ihmal ve kusuru bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 belirterek davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin 1. Karar\u0131:<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

6-) Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 09.05.2012 tarihli ve 2011\/666 E., 2012\/303 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019nun 18\/son maddesine g\u00f6re imar plan\u0131 yap\u0131lmayan yerlerde her t\u00fcrl\u00fc yap\u0131la\u015fma amac\u0131yla arsa ve parselleri hisselere ay\u0131racak \u00f6zel parselasyon planlar\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan davac\u0131n\u0131n tescil talebinin reddine, taraflar aras\u0131ndaki sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesinde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ihlali i\u00e7in sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf\u0131n fera\u011fdan ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131 veya her ne suretle olursa olsun fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesinin \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, daval\u0131n\u0131n da herhangi bir kusurunun bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle arsa pay\u0131 ve rayi\u00e7 bedelin istenmesine ili\u015fkin talebin de reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

\u00d6zel Dairenin 1. Bozma Karar\u0131:\n<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

7-)\u00a0 Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>

\ud83d\ude0e\u00a0 Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesince 20.11.2012 tarihli ve 2012\/10497 E., 2012\/13354 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile;
\u201c\u20261- Davada dayan\u0131lan 07.07.1993 ve 09.04.1999 g\u00fcnl\u00fc s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi konusu \u201c48 ada 1 parselde kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki binan\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131nda bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan 8 numaral\u0131 mesken niteli\u011finde ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u201d olarak ifade edilmi\u015ftir. K\u0131saca, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 vaat olunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n belli bir arsa pay\u0131 de\u011fil, o ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki yap\u0131lan binadaki ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmd\u00fcr.<\/p>

3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019nun 26 ve 27. maddelerinde belirtilen ayr\u0131cal\u0131klar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yap\u0131ya ba\u015flanmadan \u00f6nce ruhsat al\u0131nmas\u0131 zorunludur. Buradaki \u201cruhsat\u201d kavram\u0131 (ya da yap\u0131 izin belgesi) arsa malikine ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 \u00fczerinde imar ko\u015fullar\u0131na uygun bir yap\u0131y\u0131 veya yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir yap\u0131 \u00fczerindeki esasl\u0131 de\u011fi\u015fiklik, ek ve onar\u0131mlar\u0131 yapabilmesi i\u00e7in yetkili merciin verdi\u011fi izin belgesini ifade eder. Bu belgeyle arsa maliki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131 \u00fczerine bina yapabilme yetkisi kazan\u0131r. 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019nun 21. maddesinin ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u201cyap\u0131 ruhsatiyesi\u201d olarak ifade edilen bu belgeye uygulamada \u201cin\u015faat ruhsat\u0131\u201d denilmektedir. Yap\u0131ya ruhsat al\u0131narak ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015f ve in\u015faat, ruhsat ve eklerine uygun bi\u00e7imde bitirilmi\u015fse hi\u00e7bir sorun yoktur. Ancak, yap\u0131ya ruhsat al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f veya ruhsat al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olsa bile in\u015faat ruhsat ve eklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa bu t\u00fcr yerler \u201cka\u00e7ak yap\u0131\u201d say\u0131laca\u011f\u0131ndan 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Yasas\u0131n\u0131n 32. maddesi uyar\u0131nca y\u0131k\u0131ma tabi tutulur. B\u00f6ylesine bir bina y\u0131k\u0131ma tabi olaca\u011f\u0131ndan bu t\u00fcr yerlerde ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak m\u00fclkiyet talebinde bulunulamaz. Aksinin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmesi ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 \u015feklindeki yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n hukuk d\u00fczeni taraf\u0131ndan korunmas\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir.<\/p>

Her ne kadar 24.04.1978 tarihli ve 1978\/3-4 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda 634 say\u0131l\u0131 Kat M\u00fclkiyeti Kanunu\u2019nun y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden sonra ana ta\u015f\u0131nmazda hen\u00fcz kat m\u00fclkiyeti ya da irtifak\u0131 kurulmadan \u00f6nce ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme ili\u015fkin ve arsa pay\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 veya ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z, e\u015f deyi\u015fle arsa de\u011feri belirlenmi\u015f veya belirlenmemi\u015f olarak noterlerde yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015fse de i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131n\u0131n konusu ka\u00e7ak olmayan yap\u0131larla ilgilidir.<\/p>

Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; 48 ada 1 parselin tapu kayd\u0131na g\u00f6re, 33.840 m2 olarak, 1957 y\u0131l\u0131nda kesinle\u015fen kadastro sonucu \u201cbah\u00e7\u0131van odas\u0131 olan bostan\u201d niteli\u011fiyle tapuya tescil edildi\u011fi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazda daval\u0131n\u0131n 17059\/881280 pay\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Beykoz Belediyesinin; 26.01.2012 g\u00fcnl\u00fc yaz\u0131s\u0131nda ise, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli revizyon uygulama imar plan\u0131nda, \u201ck\u0131smen ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeoteknik et\u00fct gerektiren alan 3, k\u0131smen dere ta\u015fk\u0131n alan\u0131nda kalmakta olup, G\u00f6ksu Mesire Alan\u0131 ve k\u0131smen 25 metrelik yol olarak planland\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d ve 22.11.2010 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131ndan da ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki binaya ili\u015fkin yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve onayl\u0131 mimari projesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir. G\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyor ki, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn bulundu\u011fu yap\u0131n\u0131n uygulamadaki deyimi ile \u201cka\u00e7ak-imara ayk\u0131r\u0131\u201d oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lmakta, isteminin bu nedenlerle reddine karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde istemin reddi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f ise de, verilen h\u00fck\u00fcm sonucu, esas bak\u0131m\u0131ndan usul ve yasaya uygun oldu\u011fundan, HUMK\u2019nun 438\/son maddesi gere\u011fince h\u00fckm\u00fcn m\u00fclkiyet aktar\u0131m\u0131na ili\u015fkin ret gerek\u00e7esinin yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu \u015fekilde de\u011fi\u015ftirilerek, d\u00fczeltilmesine ve davac\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan di\u011fer t\u00fcm temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Davac\u0131 vekilinin bedele ili\u015fkin temyiz itirazlar\u0131na gelince;<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Davac\u0131, ikinci kademede tazminat isteminde de bulunmu\u015ftur. Dayanak sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin 13. maddelerinde, sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf\u0131n fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131 veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesi durumunda, sat\u0131\u015f vaadini kabul eden taraf\u0131n tazminat haklar\u0131 h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bu h\u00fckm\u00fc \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde davac\u0131n\u0131n ikinci kademedeki bedel istemi hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi gerekirken, yaz\u0131l\u0131 \u015fekilde h\u00fck\u00fcm tesisi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi\u2026\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin 2. Karar\u0131:<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

9-) <\/b>Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 15.05.2013 tarihli ve 2013\/173 E., 2013\/322 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile bozma karar\u0131na uymak suretiyle yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama neticesinde; dayanak sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesinde \u201cSat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ihlali\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda yap\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemede, ihlalin \u015fart\u0131 olarak sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131rsa veya her ne suretle olursa olsun fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirirse tescil veya zarar ziyan talep edilebilece\u011finin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, somut olayda daval\u0131n\u0131n fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131nma h\u00e2li veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirme h\u00e2linin s\u00f6z konusu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131n al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda da yap\u0131n\u0131n ruhsats\u0131z oldu\u011fu, \u0130stanbul\u2019un b\u00fcy\u00fck k\u0131sm\u0131nda var olan ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131lar\u0131n emsallerine g\u00f6re uygun, ruhsatl\u0131 binalardan daha ucuza al\u0131n\u0131p sat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve al\u0131c\u0131-sat\u0131c\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan da bu durumun bilindi\u011fi, bu ger\u00e7eklerle hareket eden al\u0131c\u0131-sat\u0131c\u0131 (davac\u0131-daval\u0131) taraf\u0131ndan ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 niteli\u011findeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n bir kat\u0131n\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile sat\u0131\u015fa konu edildi\u011fi, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yakla\u015f\u0131k 14 y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcredir davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede belirlenen yapt\u0131r\u0131mlar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131 i\u00e7in gerekli olan fera\u011f\u0131 vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131nma veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirme ko\u015fulunun daval\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi, aradaki ili\u015fki g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daval\u0131n\u0131n davac\u0131 aleyhine bir k\u00f6t\u00fc niyeti ve buna ba\u011fl\u0131 haks\u0131z kazanc\u0131 veya davac\u0131n\u0131n iyiniyetine dayal\u0131 korunmas\u0131 gereken \u00fcst\u00fcn bir hakk\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

\u00d6zel Dairenin 2. Bozma Karar\u0131:<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

10-)\u00a0 Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>

11-)\u00a0 Yarg\u0131tay 14. Hukuk Dairesince 06.05.2014 tarihli ve 2014\/1051 E., 2014\/5839 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile; \u201cDavac\u0131n\u0131n ikinci kademedeki tazminat istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n fera\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilememesinden dolay\u0131 sorumluluk daval\u0131ya aittir. Buradaki borcun nedeni, bor\u00e7lunun (daval\u0131n\u0131n) taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etmesidir. Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu\u2019nun 96. maddesine dayanarak ademi ifa sebebiyle dava konusu dairenin dava tarihi itibariyle rayi\u00e7 de\u011feri olan tazminat miktar\u0131n\u0131n h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekirken, bozma karar\u0131na uyulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen bozma ilam\u0131n\u0131n gere\u011fi yerine getirilmeden ayn\u0131 gerek\u00e7elerle davac\u0131n\u0131n ikinci kademedeki tazminat isteminin reddi do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011fi\u201d gerek\u00e7esiyle karar bozulmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Direnme Karar\u0131:\n<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

12-)\u00a0 Beykoz 2. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesinin 29.09.2014 tarihli ve 2014\/246 E., 2014\/366 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile \u00f6nceki gerek\u00e7elere ek olarak; her ne kadarda bozma karar\u0131nda \u201d davac\u0131n\u0131n ikinci kademedeki tazminat istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n fera\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilmemesinden dolay\u0131 sorumlulu\u011fun daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu ve buradaki borcun nedeninin daval\u0131n\u0131n taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etmesi\u201d olarak belirtilmi\u015fse de, daval\u0131n\u0131n 07.07.1993 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmede ve bunun tekrar\u0131 olan davac\u0131n\u0131n 2. malik olarak yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu s\u00f6zle\u015fmede b\u00f6yle bir taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fcn bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesinde daval\u0131 sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131 veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesinin d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, kat m\u00fclkiyetinin kurulamamas\u0131n\u0131n ifa imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirilmesine imk\u00e2n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye uygun \u015fekilde borcun ifa edildi\u011fi, ilk malikin yakla\u015f\u0131k 6 sene, davac\u0131n\u0131n da 15 senedir bu yeri kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kat m\u00fclkiyeti kurulamamas\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n da g\u00f6sterilmedi\u011fi, sadece sat\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan fera\u011f verilmemesi veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesinin sonu\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtilmeyen bir durumun davac\u0131 lehine yorumlanarak ifa imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, kald\u0131 ki b\u00f6yle bir ifan\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u015fart olarak ko\u015fulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

Direnme Karar\u0131n\u0131n Temyizi:\n<\/h4>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

13-)\u00a0 Direnme karar\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

II. UYU\u015eMAZLIK\n<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

14-) Direnme yolu ile Hukuk Genel Kurulu \u00f6n\u00fcne gelen uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; somut olayda, Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011finin 07.07.1993 ve 09.04.1999 tarihli d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine konu 48 ada 1 parselde kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki binan\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131nda bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan 8 numaral\u0131 mesken niteli\u011finde ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn m\u00fclkiyetini devretme borcu y\u00fcklenen daval\u0131n\u0131n, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n fera\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilememesinden dolay\u0131 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu (BK)\u2019nun 96. maddesi gere\u011fince dava konusu dairenin dava tarihi itibariyle rayi\u00e7 de\u011feri olan tazminat miktar\u0131ndan sorumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

III. GEREK\u00c7E\n<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

15-)\u00a0 Konuya ili\u015fkin olarak yasal d\u00fczenlemeler, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin hukuki nitelikleri, unsurlar\u0131, tabi olduklar\u0131 \u015fekil \u015fartlar\u0131 ve bu \u015fartlara uyulmamas\u0131n\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 \u00fczerinde durmakta yarar vard\u0131r.<\/p>

16-) Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri, 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n, T\u00fcrk hukukuna getirdi\u011fi yeniliklerdendir ve daha \u00e7ok da ko\u015fullar\u0131 hen\u00fcz ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmedi\u011fi i\u00e7in kurulmas\u0131 olanaks\u0131z olan as\u0131l sat\u0131m s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin g\u00f6revini yerine getirmek \u00fczere kolay ve g\u00fcvenli bir yol olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcp, tercih edilen bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme t\u00fcr\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>

17-)\u00a0 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile ilgili olarak kanunlarda a\u00e7\u0131k bir tan\u0131ma rastlanmamaktad\u0131r. Bununla birlikte, kanun koyucu taraf\u0131ndan 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 213 [6098 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Kanunu (TBK) m. 237], 2644 say\u0131l\u0131 Tapu Kanunu\u2019nun 26, 1512 say\u0131l\u0131 Noterlik Kanunu\u2019nun 60\/3 ve 89 ile 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Medeni Kanunu (TMK)\u2019nun 706 ve 1009. maddeleri ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine daha \u00e7ok \u015fekil ve \u015ferh konular\u0131 itibariyle yer verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

18-)\u00a0 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri ile ilgili doktrinde farkl\u0131 tan\u0131mlar mevcut olup, doktrindeki \u00e7o\u011funluk g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri; bir ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n ileride belirli \u015fartlarla belirli bir ki\u015fiye sat\u0131lmas\u0131 borcunu i\u00e7eren; bir tarafa veya iki tarafa birden ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 talep etme hakk\u0131 sa\u011flayan bir \u00f6n s\u00f6zle\u015fme olarak tan\u0131mlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r (Demirkaya, S., Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, \u00c7a\u011f \u00dcniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstit\u00fcs\u00fc 2020, Yay\u0131nlanmam\u0131\u015f Y\u00fcksek Lisans Tezi, s. 5).<\/p>

19-) Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bak\u0131m\u0131ndan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan ve dikkate al\u0131nmas\u0131 gereken 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK, kural olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde \u015fekil serbestisini benimsemi\u015ftir. Bu husus BK\u2019n\u0131n 11. maddesinin 1. f\u0131kras\u0131nda \u201cAkdin s\u0131hhati, kanunda sarahat olmad\u0131k\u00e7a hi\u00e7 bir \u015fekle tabi de\u011fildir\u201d \u015feklinde belirtilmi\u015f, ancak yasada tersine kural bulunmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde \u015fekle ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131k kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Nitekim, 11. maddenin 2. f\u0131kras\u0131nda, yasaca bir bi\u00e7im \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015fse ve bu bi\u00e7imin kapsam ve sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015fkaca kural konulmam\u0131\u015fsa, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bu bi\u00e7ime uyulmad\u0131k\u00e7a ge\u00e7erli olmayaca\u011f\u0131 h\u00fckme ba\u011flanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>

20-)\u00a0 Ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un \u201cAkit yapmak vaadi\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan 22. maddesinde ise; \u201cBir akdin ileride in\u015fa edilmesine dair mukavele muteberdir. Kanun iki taraf\u0131n menfaatleri i\u00e7in bu akdin s\u0131hhatini bir nevi \u015fekle riayet etmeye tabi k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde, bu \u015fekil o akdin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 taahh\u00fcd\u00fcne de tatbik olunur\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fc yer almaktad\u0131r. G\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir ki, bir akdin s\u0131hhati hangi \u015fekle tabi ise vaadinin bu \u015fekle uyularak yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekir.<\/p>

21-) Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetini devir borcunu do\u011furan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere ili\u015fkin 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 TMK\u2019n\u0131n \u201cHukuki i\u015flem\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 706. maddesi ; \u201cTa\u015f\u0131nmaz m\u00fclkiyetinin devrini ama\u00e7layan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131, resm\u00ee \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f bulunmalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6l\u00fcme ba\u011fl\u0131 tasarruflar ve mal rejimi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri, kendilerine \u00f6zg\u00fc \u015fekillere tabidir\u201d \u015feklindedir.<\/p>

22-)\u00a0 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 213. maddesinde de, \u201cAkdin \u015fekli\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in getirilen resm\u00ee senede ba\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri i\u00e7in de \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>

23-)\u00a0 Bu ba\u011flamda 2644 say\u0131l\u0131 Tapu Kanunu\u2019nun 26. maddesi ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015flar\u0131 i\u00e7in tapu sicil m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc veya tapu sicil g\u00f6revlilerini yetkili k\u0131lm\u0131\u015fken, 1512 say\u0131l\u0131 Noterlik Kanunu\u2019nun 60\/3 ve 89. maddeleri ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin noterlerce d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde (res\u2019en) yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 kural\u0131n\u0131 getirmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

24-)\u00a0 Bu a\u00e7\u0131k h\u00fck\u00fcmler g\u00f6stermektedir ki, resm\u00ee senede ba\u011flanmayan tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131mlar\u0131 ile noterde d\u00fczenleme bi\u00e7iminde (resen) yap\u0131lmam\u0131\u015f olan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadine ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler ge\u00e7ersizdir.<\/p>

25-)\u00a0 Burada kanunun \u00f6ng\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u015feklin bir ge\u00e7erlilik (s\u0131hhat) \u015fart\u0131 olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, buna uyulmadan yap\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelere \u201cge\u00e7ersizlik\u201d m\u00fceyyidesinin ba\u011fland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bunun hukuki mahiyet olarak emredici nitelikte oldu\u011funu, bu nedenle de \u201cge\u00e7ersizlik\u201d m\u00fceyyidesine ba\u011flanan \u015fekil eksikli\u011finin h\u00e2kim taraf\u0131ndan taraflar ileri s\u00fcrmeseler dahi, yarg\u0131laman\u0131n her a\u015famas\u0131nda resen g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini belirtmekte yarar vard\u0131r (Hukuk Genel Kurulunun (HGK) 05.12.2001 tarihli ve 2001\/13-1021 E., 1101 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>

26-)\u00a0 Di\u011fer taraftan, 2644 say\u0131l\u0131 Tapu Kanunu\u2019nun 26. maddesinin 7 ve 8. f\u0131kralar\u0131nda da; noterlik\u00e7e d\u00fczenlenen sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin taraflardan biri isterse ta\u015f\u0131nmaz siciline \u015ferh verilece\u011fi, \u015ferhten itibaren be\u015f y\u0131l i\u00e7inde sat\u0131\u015f yap\u0131lmazsa veya irtifak tesis ve tapuya tescil edilmezse bu \u015ferhin tapu sicil m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc veya tapu sicil g\u00f6revlileri taraf\u0131ndan re\u2019sen terkin olunaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilmi\u015ftir. Bu d\u00fczenleme ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden do\u011fan hakka, \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015filere kar\u015f\u0131 ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilme g\u00fcc\u00fc verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

27-)\u00a0 \u00d6z\u00fcnde kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc yap\u0131s\u0131yla \u015fahsi hak niteli\u011finde olan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri getirilen bu tapuya \u015ferh olana\u011f\u0131 ile g\u00fc\u00e7lendirilmi\u015f bulunmaktad\u0131r. S\u00f6zle\u015fmenin sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015fahsi hakk\u0131 ayni hakka d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmemekle birlikte \u201c ayn\u00ee tesir\u201d kazand\u0131ran bu \u015ferhin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi de sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Ge\u00e7ersiz bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak tapuya i\u015flenen \u015ferhin ge\u00e7erlili\u011finden ve koruyuculu\u011fundan da s\u00f6z edilemez.<\/p>

28-)\u00a0 \u00d6zetle ifade edilecek olursa; kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 22. maddesinden alan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri, 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 213 (6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK\u2019n\u0131n m. 237) ile 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 TMK\u2019n\u0131n 706 (743 say\u0131l\u0131 T\u00fcrk Kanunu Medenisi m. 634) ve Noterlik Kanunu\u2019nun 89. maddeleri uyar\u0131nca, noter \u00f6n\u00fcnde re\u2019sen d\u00fczenlenmesi gereken, bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi resmi \u015fekil \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 k\u0131l\u0131nan ve tam iki tarafa bor\u00e7 y\u00fckleyen ki\u015fisel hak do\u011furan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerdendir.<\/p>

29-)\u00a0 Ayn\u0131 hususlar HGK\u2019n\u0131n 28.09.2011 tarihli ve 2011\/13-528 E., 2011\/571 K. say\u0131l\u0131 ve 29.09.2010 tarihli ve 2010\/14-386 E., 2010\/427 K. say\u0131l\u0131 kararlar\u0131nda da benimsenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

30-)\u00a0 Ger\u00e7ekten de gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi, bor\u00e7 do\u011furan s\u00f6zle\u015fme oldu\u011fundan ve bor\u00e7 do\u011furan bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fi ise BK\u2019n\u0131n 19. maddesinde aran\u0131lan \u015fartlar\u0131n ve \u015fekil \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015f bulunmas\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olup ba\u015fka bir \u015farta \u00f6rne\u011fin bor\u00e7 alt\u0131na girenin malik olmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 de\u011fildir (Karahasan, M. R:, T\u00fcrk Bor\u00e7lar Hukuku \u00d6zel Bor\u00e7 ili\u015fkileri \u00d6\u011freti Yarg\u0131tay Kararlar\u0131, \u0130stanbul 2002, s. 470, HGK\u2019n\u0131n 10.02.1960 tarihli ve 4\/6 E, 188 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>

31-)\u00a0 Bir gayrimenkul sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, ileride kurulmas\u0131 vaad edilen esas s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin temel unsurlar\u0131n\u0131 kapsamal\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak bu hususlar\u0131n kesin olarak sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde belirtilmelerinde zorunluluk yoktur. Bunlar\u0131n belirli veya belirlenebilir olmalar\u0131 gerekli ve yeterlidir (Kocayusufpa\u015fao\u011flu, N: T\u00fcrk Medeni Hukukunda Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi, \u0130stanbul 1959, s. 113). Nitekim 24.04.1978 tarihli ve 1978\/3-4 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131 ile de 634 say\u0131l\u0131 Kat M\u00fclkiyeti Kanunu\u2019nun y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden sonra ana ta\u015f\u0131nmazda hen\u00fcz kat m\u00fclkiyeti ya da irtifak\u0131 kurulmadan \u00f6nce ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme ili\u015fkin ve arsa pay\u0131 ile ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 veya ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z, e\u015f deyi\u015fle arsa de\u011feri belirlenmi\u015f veya belirlenmemi\u015f olarak noterlerde yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

32-)\u00a0 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 bor\u00e7 y\u00fckleyen s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerdendir. Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde taraflar\u0131n, yani vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 ile vaat bor\u00e7lusunun birbirine kar\u015f\u0131 bor\u00e7land\u0131klar\u0131 iki asli edim vard\u0131r. Vaat bor\u00e7lusunun edimi sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulundu\u011fu e\u015fyan\u0131n zilyetlik ve m\u00fclkiyetini al\u0131c\u0131ya devretmek, vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n edimi ise, bu temlik kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda bir bedel \u00f6demektir. Resm\u00ee \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlenmesi gereken ve tam iki tarafa bor\u00e7 y\u00fckleyen sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinde, edimini yerine getiren taraf, kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n da edimini yerine getirmesini isteyebilir.<\/p>

33-)\u00a0 Vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile m\u00fclkiyet ge\u00e7irim borcu y\u00fcklenen, ancak edimini yerine getirmeyen vaat bor\u00e7lusu sat\u0131c\u0131dan, dava tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte bulunan 4721 say\u0131l\u0131 TMK\u2019n\u0131n 716. maddesi uyar\u0131nca a\u00e7\u0131lacak tapu iptali ve tescil davas\u0131 yolu ile edimin h\u00fckmen yerine getirilmesini isteyebilir.<\/p>

34-)\u00a0 \u00d6nemle belirtelim ki, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanan tapu iptal ve tescil davalar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc i\u00e7in aranacak ilk husus s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifa olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. \u015eayet, sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 vaat edilen ta\u015f\u0131nmaz tapusunda temliki tasarrufu engelleyen kay\u0131t varsa veya 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019nun 18\/son maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcne ayk\u0131r\u0131 \u015fekilde sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunulmu\u015fsa veyahut da vaade konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz bir ba\u015fka mahkemede m\u00fclkiyet uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131na konu olmu\u015fsa, bu gibi h\u00e2llerde de s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anda ifa olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan s\u00f6z edilemez.<\/p>

35-)\u00a0 \u0130fa imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 konusunda; 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 20\/1. maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cBir akdin mevzuu gayr\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn veya gayri muhik yahut ahlaka mugayir olursa o akit bat\u0131ld\u0131r\u201d BK\u2019n\u0131n 96. maddesi, \u201cAlacakl\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 k\u0131smen veya tamamen istifa edemedi\u011fi takdirde bor\u00e7lu kendisine hi\u00e7bir kusurun isnat edilemeyece\u011fini ispat edemedik\u00e7e bundan m\u00fctevellit zarar\u0131 tazmine mecburdur\u201d h\u00fck\u00fcmlerini ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r. Keza, BK\u2019n\u0131n 117. maddesi \u201cBor\u00e7luya isnat olunamayan h\u00e2ller m\u00fcnasebetiyle borcun ifas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmazsa, bor\u00e7 sak\u0131t olur\u201d demek suretiyle imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczenlemi\u015ftir.<\/p>

36-)\u00a0 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi yap\u0131ld\u0131ktan sonra s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ifa olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 lehine tescil edilemez. Kural olarak borcun ifa edilmemesi, bor\u00e7lunun sorumlulu\u011funu meydana getirir ve borcun ifa edilmemesinde bor\u00e7lu kusurlu kabul edilir. Bu durumda, vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 davac\u0131 aynen ifa yerine BK\u2019n\u0131n 96 ve devam\u0131 maddeleri uyar\u0131nca tazminat talep edebilir. Bor\u00e7lunun buradaki sorumlulu\u011fu genelde s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayal\u0131 olan taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fc ihlal etmesidir. Onun i\u00e7in buna s\u00f6zle\u015fmesel tazminat, bor\u00e7lunun (vaat bor\u00e7lusu) sorumlulu\u011funa da s\u00f6zle\u015fmesel sorumluluk denir (Alp, Y.: Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi, Akdeniz \u00dcniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstit\u00fcs\u00fc 2017, Yay\u0131nlanmam\u0131\u015f Y\u00fcksek Lisans Tezi, s. 67).<\/p>

37-)\u00a0 Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n hen\u00fcz b\u00f6l\u00fcnmemi\u015f bir par\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 vaad ediliyorsa, s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u0130mar Kanunu gere\u011fince ilgili kurumlardan onay\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f say\u0131lmal\u0131, ayr\u0131ca a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k olmad\u0131k\u00e7a sat\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n her \u015feye ra\u011fmen imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yenmeyi taahh\u00fct etti\u011fi kabul edilmelidir. Bu h\u00e2lde de, imk\u00e2ns\u0131z edimi ifa edemeyen sat\u0131c\u0131, vaad alacakl\u0131s\u0131na BK\u2019n\u0131n 96. maddesi gere\u011fince tazminatla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fc olmal\u0131d\u0131r (Kocayusufpa\u015fao\u011flu, s. 79). BK\u2019n\u0131n 96. maddesi gere\u011fince \u00f6denmesi gereken tazminat ise alacakl\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcspet zarar\u0131d\u0131r. M\u00fcspet zarardan da, bor\u00e7lu eday\u0131 gere\u011fi gibi ve vaktinde yerine getirseydi alacakl\u0131n\u0131n mameleki ne vaziyette bulunacak idi ise, bu vaziyetle mamelekin h\u00e2li haz\u0131r vaziyeti aras\u0131ndaki fark anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>

38-) T\u00fcm bu a\u00e7\u0131klamalar \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda somut olay de\u011ferlendirildi\u011finde; dava d\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u2026 ile daval\u0131 aras\u0131nda akdedilen Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011finin 07.07.1993 tarihli ve 07914 yevmiye numaral\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 3. maddesinde s\u00f6zle\u015fme konusunu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n, \u0130stanbul ili, Beykoz il\u00e7esi, Anadolu Hisar\u0131 Mah. Bent Yolu Soka\u011f\u0131nda bulunan 48 ada 1 parselde gayrimenkul \u00fczerine sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan \u2026\u2019nin hissesi mukabilinde kendisi taraf\u0131ndan in\u015fa ettirilen apartman\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131ndan bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan kendileri taraf\u0131ndan numaraland\u0131r\u0131lan 8 nolu, 75.50m2 olan iki oda, bir salondan ibaret olan daire olarak belirtildi\u011fi, 4. maddesinde 40.000.000ETL\u2019nin nakden ve pe\u015finen al\u0131c\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00f6dendi\u011fi, 7. maddesinde kat m\u00fclkiyeti veya kat irtifak\u0131 kurulduktan bir ay sonra al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n istedi\u011fi anda fera\u011fa ait takrir verilece\u011fi, 11. maddesinde s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u015fartlar\u0131 de\u011fi\u015ftirilmemek ko\u015fuluyla devredilebilece\u011fi ve 13. maddesinde de \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ihlali\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda, sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf\u0131n fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131rsa veya her ne suretle olursa olsun fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirirse sat\u0131\u015f vaadi kabul eden taraf\u0131n dilerse ve m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ise yarg\u0131 yolu ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tescilini isteyece\u011fi, ayr\u0131ca gecikmeden dolay\u0131 zarar ve ziyan talep edebilece\u011fi, dilerse sat\u0131\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshi ile o g\u00fcne kadar \u00f6dedi\u011fi paray\u0131 kanuni faizi ile birlikte isteyebilece\u011fi, dilerse ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n o g\u00fcnk\u00fc rayi\u00e7 bedelinin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilece\u011finin h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u2026 taraf\u0131ndan Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011finin 09.04.1999 tarihli ve 03415 yevmiye numaral\u0131 d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile 07.07.1993 tarihli ve 07914 yevmiye numaral\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki t\u00fcm haklar\u0131n 250.000.000ETL bedel kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda davac\u0131ya devredildi\u011fi, s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerin \u00f6nceki s\u00f6zle\u015fmedeki h\u00fck\u00fcmlerle ayn\u0131 i\u00e7eri\u011fe sahip oldu\u011fu, yine 13. maddenin de ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde d\u00fczenleme konusu yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>

39-)\u00a0 Davac\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerine dayal\u0131 olarak s\u00f6zle\u015fme konusu 48 ada 1 parselde kay\u0131tl\u0131 bulunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz \u00fczerindeki binan\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131nda bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan 8 numaral\u0131 daireye ait hissenin iptali ile ad\u0131na tescili, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde dairenin arsa pay\u0131 ile rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferinin \u00f6denmesi talep edilmi\u015ftir. Dosya kapsam\u0131ndan, \u00e7eki\u015fmeli 48 ada 1 parselin tapu kayd\u0131na g\u00f6re, 33.840 m2 olarak, 1957 y\u0131l\u0131nda kesinle\u015fen kadastro sonucu \u201cbah\u00e7\u0131van odas\u0131 olan bostan\u201d niteli\u011fiyle tapuya tescil edildi\u011fi ve ta\u015f\u0131nmazda daval\u0131n\u0131n 17059\/881280 pay\u0131n\u0131n bulundu\u011fu, Beykoz Belediyesinin 26.01.2012 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n 1\/1000 \u00f6l\u00e7ekli revizyon uygulama imar plan\u0131nda, \u201ck\u0131smen ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeoteknik et\u00fct gerektiren alan 3, k\u0131smen dere ta\u015fk\u0131n alan\u0131nda kalmakta olup, G\u00f6ksu Mesire Alan\u0131 ve k\u0131smen 25 metrelik yol olarak planland\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d ve 22.11.2010 tarihli yaz\u0131s\u0131nda da ta\u015f\u0131nmazdaki binaya ili\u015fkin yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve onayl\u0131 mimari projesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bildirildi\u011fi, sat\u0131\u015f vaadine konu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn bulundu\u011fu yap\u0131n\u0131n uygulamadaki deyimi ile \u201cka\u00e7ak-imara ayk\u0131r\u0131\u201d oldu\u011fu, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 vaat olunan ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n belli bir arsa pay\u0131 da olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 \u015feklindeki ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayan\u0131larak m\u00fclkiyet talebinde bulunulamayaca\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla aynen ifan\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r. Nitekim bu hususta \u00d6zel Daire ve \u00d6zel Dairenin bu y\u00f6ne i\u015faret eden 20.11.2012 tarihli karar\u0131na uyma karar\u0131 veren yerel mahkeme aras\u0131nda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmamaktad\u0131r.<\/p>

40-)\u00a0 Sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde daval\u0131 vaadinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a \u201c\u202648 ada 1 parselde gayrimenkul \u00fczerine sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan \u2026\u2019nin hissesi mukabilinde kendisi taraf\u0131ndan in\u015fa ettirilen apartman\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131ndan bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan kendileri taraf\u0131ndan numaraland\u0131r\u0131lan 8 nolu, 75.50m2 olan iki oda, bir salondan ibaret olan dairenin\u201d sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 vaad etmi\u015ftir. Sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine konu bu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinde de \u201cka\u00e7ak-imara ayk\u0131r\u0131\u201d oldu\u011fu, daval\u0131 ediminin ifas\u0131na olanak bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirgindir. Hemen belirtmelidir ki, yukar\u0131da ayr\u0131nt\u0131s\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klanan yasal d\u00fczenlemeler ve bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin hukuki yap\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde \u015fekil bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ge\u00e7erli bir s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin bulundu\u011funda ku\u015fku bulunmamaktad\u0131r. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi m\u00fclkiyet aktar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamamakla birlikte taahh\u00fct muamelesi olarak ge\u00e7erlili\u011fini korumaktad\u0131r. Taahh\u00fct muamelesi olarak ge\u00e7erli olan bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye dayanarak, davac\u0131 s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 13. maddesinde de belirtildi\u011fi \u015fekilde bedel isteminde bulunabilir.<\/p>

41_)\u00a0 Nitekim, resm\u00ee \u015fekle uygun olarak ge\u00e7erli bir bi\u00e7imde kurulan bu s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yer alan daval\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 olmadan in\u015fa edilen ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn m\u00fclkiyetini devir taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fcn ilgili kurumlardan gerekli onaylar\u0131n al\u0131nmas\u0131 taahh\u00fcd\u00fcn\u00fc de i\u00e7erdi\u011fi, binaya ili\u015fkin yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve onayl\u0131 mimari projesi bulunmamas\u0131 ve imar plan\u0131nda k\u0131smen ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeoteknik et\u00fct gerektiren alan, k\u0131smen dere ta\u015fk\u0131n alan\u0131, G\u00f6ksu Mesire Alan\u0131 ve k\u0131smen 25 metrelik yol olarak planlanmas\u0131 nedeniyle edimin ifas\u0131n\u0131n olanaks\u0131z olmas\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, daval\u0131n\u0131n ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyetini devir vaadine ili\u015fkin \u201caynen ifa\u201d n\u0131n yerini \u201ctazminat borcu\u201d alacakt\u0131r.<\/p>

42-)\u00a0 O h\u00e2lde, mahkemece taraflar y\u00f6n\u00fcnden ge\u00e7erli olarak kurulan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi bor\u00e7lusunun ediminin ifas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131narak, BK\u2019n\u0131n 96. maddesi uyar\u0131nca daval\u0131 vaad bor\u00e7lusunun davac\u0131 vaad alacakl\u0131s\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 tazminle m\u00fckellef oldu\u011funun kabul\u00fc ile bilirki\u015fi marifetiyle s\u00f6zle\u015fmeye konu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn rayi\u00e7 bedelinin ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131l\u0131p tespit edildikten sonra buna h\u00fckmedilmesi gereklidir.<\/p>

43-)\u00a0 Hukuk Genel Kurulunda yap\u0131lan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmeler s\u0131ras\u0131nda; davaya konu sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 213., 1512 say\u0131l\u0131 Noterlik Kanunu\u2019nun 60\/3 ve 89. maddelerine uygun olarak d\u00fczenlendi\u011finden bu anlamda ge\u00e7erli s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler olduklar\u0131, ne var ki sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte sat\u0131\u015f vaadine konu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve onayl\u0131 mimari projesi bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 oldu\u011fu, kat irtifak\u0131 veya kat m\u00fclkiyeti tesis edilemedi\u011fi, dava tarihi ve yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda da Beykoz Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130mar ve \u015eehircilik M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc taraf\u0131ndan G\u00f6ksu Mesire Alan\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeolojik alanda oldu\u011funun bildirildi\u011fi, \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019nun 18. maddesinin uygulanabilirli\u011finin olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u0130mar Kanunu\u2019na ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemelerin kamu d\u00fczenine ili\u015fkin oldu\u011fu ve re\u2019sen g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, 818 say\u0131l\u0131 BK\u2019n\u0131n 20. (6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK\u2019n\u0131n 27.) maddesi gere\u011fince objektif-afaki imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu ve sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin bat\u0131l oldu\u011fu, bu nedenle subjektif-enfusi imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131kta s\u00f6z konusu olan BK\u2019n\u0131n 96. maddesi uyar\u0131nca rayi\u00e7 bedelin istenmesinin m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, taraflar\u0131n konusu objektif imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan s\u00f6zle\u015fme gere\u011fince verdiklerini iade ile m\u00fckellef olup davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z zenginle\u015fti\u011fi ilk sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki 40.000.000TL bedelin denkle\u015ftici adalet ilkesi uyar\u0131nca ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011feri talep edebilece\u011fi, yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n belirtilen bu de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7elerle bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, yine \u00d6zel Dairenin birinci ve ikinci bozma kararlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6demezlik def\u2019i (BK m. 81) ile birlikte ifa kural\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin fesih ve tasfiyesini kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, sadece bedele y\u00f6nelik ihtilaf\u0131 sonland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan eksik oldu\u011fu, BK\u2019n\u0131n 205. (6098 say\u0131l\u0131 TBK\u2019n\u0131n 229.) maddesi uyar\u0131nca al\u0131c\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm meskenin daval\u0131 tarafa iadesiyle birlikte bedele h\u00fckmolunmas\u0131 gerekece\u011finin a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011fu, bu hususta HGK\u2019n\u0131n 23.06.2010 tarihli ve 2010\/19-255 E., 2010\/347 K. say\u0131l\u0131 emsal karar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek yerel mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015fik ve ilave nedenlerle bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f ise de, bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle Kurul \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fu taraf\u0131ndan benimsenmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>

44-)\u00a0 H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca; yerel mahkemece Hukuk Genel Kurulunca da benimsenen \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131na uyulmak gerekirken, \u00f6nceki kararda direnilmesi usul ve yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>

45-)\u00a0 Bu nedenle direnme karar\u0131 bozulmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

IV. SONU\u00c7:\n<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

A\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle;
Davac\u0131 vekilinin temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile direnme karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zel Daire bozma karar\u0131nda a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerden dolay\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun \u201cGe\u00e7ici 3.\u201d maddesine g\u00f6re uygulanmakta olan 1086 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Usul\u00fc Muhakemeleri Kanunu\u2019nun 429. maddesi gere\u011fince BOZULMASINA<\/u><\/b>,
\u0130stek h\u00e2linde temyiz pe\u015fin harc\u0131n\u0131n yat\u0131rana geri verilmesine,\u00a0Ayn\u0131 Kanun\u2019un 440. maddesi uyar\u0131nca karar\u0131n tebli\u011finden itibaren on be\u015f g\u00fcn i\u00e7erisinde karar d\u00fczeltme yolu a\u00e7\u0131k olmak \u00fczere 01.12.2020 tarihinde yap\u0131lan ikinci g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fmede oy \u00e7oklu\u011fu ile karar verildi.<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

KAR\u015eI OY<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Dava, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve tescili, m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 takdirde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine konu dairenin rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferinin faiziyle birlikte daval\u0131dan tahsiline ili\u015fkindir.<\/p>

Davan\u0131n reddine dair verilen karar, tazminat istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden bozulmu\u015f, Mahkemece tazminat istemi konusunda davan\u0131n reddine ili\u015fkin direnme karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f olmakla, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, sat\u0131\u015f vaadine konu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn fera\u011f\u0131n\u0131n verilememesinden dolay\u0131 daval\u0131n\u0131n ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn rayi\u00e7 de\u011feri olan tazminat miktar\u0131ndan sorumlu olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 noktas\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>

Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011fi\u2019nin 07\/07\/1993 tarih ve 07914 yevmiye numaral\u0131 D\u00fczenleme \u015eeklinde Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile \u2026, \u2026\u2019a 40.000.000TL bedelle \u0130stanbul ili, Beykoz il\u00e7esi, Anadolu Hisar\u0131 Mahallesinde bulunan 48\/1 ada parsel say\u0131l\u0131 gayrimenkul \u00fczerindeki apartman\u0131n yola g\u00f6re arka taraf\u0131nda bulunan G\u00f6ksu Deresine bakan ve kendileri taraf\u0131ndan numaralanan 8 nolu daireyi sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunmu\u015f ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 7. maddesinde kat m\u00fclkiyeti veya kat irtifak\u0131 kurulduktan bir ay sonra al\u0131c\u0131n\u0131n istedi\u011fi anda fera\u011f takriri verilece\u011fi belirtilmi\u015f, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 11. maddesinde sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesini kabul eden taraf\u0131n s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u015fartlar\u0131 ile diledi\u011fine sat\u0131\u015f vaadi yoluyla devretmeye yetkili k\u0131l\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 belirlenmi\u015f, dosya kapsam\u0131na g\u00f6re sat\u0131\u015f vaadini kabul eden \u2026, bu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmde oturduktan daha sonra Beykoz 2. Noterli\u011fi\u2019nin 09\/04\/1999 tarihli 3415 yevmiye numaral\u0131 D\u00fczenleme \u015eeklinde Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile davac\u0131 \u2026\u2019e 250.000.000TL bedelle sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunmu\u015f, bedel pe\u015finen \u00f6denmi\u015f, gerek \u00f6nceki gerekse i\u015fbu sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesinde \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ihlali\u201d ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda, sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf\u0131n fera\u011f vermekten ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131 veya her ne suretle olursa olsun fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesi h\u00e2linde sat\u0131\u015f vaadini kabul eden taraf\u0131n dilerse ve m\u00fcmk\u00fcn ise yarg\u0131 yolu ile ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n tescilini ve ayr\u0131ca gecikmeden dolay\u0131 zarar\u0131n\u0131, dilerse sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshi ile o g\u00fcne kadar \u00f6dedi\u011fi paray\u0131 kanuni faizi ile birlikte isteyebilece\u011fi, dilerse ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n o g\u00fcnk\u00fc rayi\u00e7 bedelinin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 isteyebilece\u011fi d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir.<\/p>

Dava konusu \u0130stanbul ili, Beykoz il\u00e7esi, G\u00f6ksu Deresi kenar\u0131nda bulunan apartman\u0131n kendilerince numaraland\u0131r\u0131lan 3. kat 8 nolu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 t\u00fcm yap\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 oldu\u011fu, dosyada bulunan Beykoz Belediye Ba\u015fkanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u0130mar ve \u015eehircilik M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn 22\/11\/2010 tarih ve 2310 say\u0131l\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re kat irtifak\u0131 tesis edilemedi\u011fi, onayl\u0131 mimar\u0131 projenin bulunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, parselin \u201cG\u00f6ksu Mesire alan\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeolojik et\u00fct gereken alan\u201d olarak imar plan\u0131nda planland\u0131\u011f\u0131, Emlak ve \u0130stimlak M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc\u2019n\u00fcn 29\/11\/2010 tarih ve 2377 say\u0131l\u0131 yaz\u0131s\u0131na g\u00f6re de 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanunun 18. maddesine g\u00f6re imar uygulamas\u0131n\u0131n program aras\u0131nda yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bildirilmi\u015ftir. Dava konusu ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n gerek sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 olup, dava tarihi ve yarg\u0131lama s\u0131ras\u0131nda da kat irtifak\u0131 tesis edilemeyece\u011fi ve \u0130mar Kanunu 18. madde uygulamas\u0131na da konu olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sabittir.<\/p>

Davac\u0131n\u0131n davaya konu ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131daki ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi uyar\u0131nca ad\u0131na tescili talebi reddedilip kesinle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 3194 say\u0131l\u0131 \u0130mar Kanunun 26 ve 27. maddelerinde belirtilen ayr\u0131cal\u0131klar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda yap\u0131ya ba\u015flanmadan \u00f6nce ruhsat al\u0131nmas\u0131 zorunlu olup \u0130mar Kanununun 21. maddesinde \u201cyap\u0131 ruhsatiyesi\u201d olarak ifade edilmektedir. Yap\u0131ya ruhsat al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f veya ruhsat al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olsa bile in\u015faat ruhsat ve eklerine ayk\u0131r\u0131 yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa bu t\u00fcr yerler ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131d\u0131r ve \u0130mar Kanununun 32. maddesi uyar\u0131nca y\u0131k\u0131ma tabi olaca\u011f\u0131ndan, bu t\u00fcr ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm sat\u0131\u015f\u0131na ili\u015fkin sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayan\u0131larak m\u00fclkiyet talebinde bulunulamaz.<\/p>

24\/04\/1978 tarih 1978\/3-4 say\u0131l\u0131 Yarg\u0131tay \u0130\u00e7tihad\u0131 Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131nda, 634 say\u0131l\u0131 Kat M\u00fclkiyeti Kanununun y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe girmesinden sonra ana ta\u015f\u0131nmazda hen\u00fcz kat m\u00fclkiyeti ya da irtifak\u0131 kurulmadan \u00f6nce ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcme ili\u015fkin sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015ftir. Ancak bu \u0130\u00e7tihadi Birle\u015ftirme Karar\u0131, ka\u00e7ak olmayan ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmeden sonra kat m\u00fclkiyeti ya da kat irtifak\u0131 kurulabilecek olan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmlere ili\u015fkin sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu konusundad\u0131r. Bu nedenle somut olayda uygulanabilirli\u011fi s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fildir.
818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 213. maddesinde ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in getirilen resmi senede ba\u011flanmas\u0131 \u015fart\u0131, ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri i\u00e7in de \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f, 1512 say\u0131l\u0131 Noterlik Kanununun 60\/3 ve 89. maddeleri ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin noterlerce d\u00fczenleme \u015feklinde yap\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 kural\u0131n\u0131 getirmi\u015ftir. Davaya konu sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri bu s\u0131hhat \u015fart\u0131na uygun olarak d\u00fczenlenmi\u015f, bu anlamda ge\u00e7erli s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerdir. Sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri, tam iki tarafa bor\u00e7 y\u00fckleyen, ki\u015fisel hak do\u011furan s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerdendir. Ki\u015fisel bor\u00e7 do\u011furan s\u00f6zle\u015fme olmas\u0131 nedeniyle, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ge\u00e7erli olmas\u0131 i\u00e7in sat\u0131\u015f vaad edenin vaadin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte tapuda kay\u0131tl\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n maliki olmas\u0131 gerekmez. \u0130\u015ftirak h\u00e2lindeki ta\u015f\u0131nmaz maldaki hisselerin de sat\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n vaadi ge\u00e7erlidir. Her iki h\u00e2lde de sat\u0131\u015f\u0131 vaad eden, akit icaplar\u0131n\u0131 yerine getirmedi\u011fi takdirde s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin di\u011fer taraf\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 sat\u0131\u015f bedelini geri vermek ve u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 m\u00fcsbet ve menfi zarar\u0131\u00a0tazmin ile m\u00fckelleftir. Bu h\u00e2llerde akdin yerine getirilememesi, subjektif bir imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k olup, akdin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine halel getirmez.
Dava konusu s\u00f6zle\u015fme tarihinde y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan 818 say\u0131l\u0131 Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 20\/1 maddesine g\u00f6re, \u201cBir akdin mevzuu gayrim\u00fcmk\u00fcn veya gayrimuhik yahut ahlaka mugayyir olursa o ak\u0131t bat\u0131ld\u0131r\u201d. Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 96. maddesi \u201calacakl\u0131 hakk\u0131n\u0131 k\u0131smen veya tamamen istifa edemedi\u011fi takdirde bor\u00e7lu kendisine hi\u00e7bir kusurun isnad edilemeyece\u011fini ispat edemedik\u00e7e bundan m\u00fctevellit zarar\u0131 tazmine mecburdur\u201d h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fc haizdir. Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 117. maddesinde de imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k kavram\u0131 d\u00fczenlenmi\u015ftir. imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k, ifa engeli sebeplerinden biridir. Bor\u00e7lan\u0131lan edimin ya ba\u015ftan itibaren ge\u00e7erli olarak do\u011fmas\u0131n\u0131 ya da sonradan bor\u00e7lu veya di\u011fer herhangi bir kimse taraf\u0131ndan objektif, s\u00fcrekli ve kesin olarak yerine getirilmesini \u00f6nleyen, fiili veya hukuki engellere verilen isim olarak tarif edilebilir. Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 20. maddesine g\u00f6re bir akdin konusu m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011filse, o akit imk\u00e2ns\u0131zd\u0131r. Burada s\u00f6z konusu olan imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7taki yani s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131rada mevcut olan imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131kt\u0131r (Objektif imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k). Bu h\u00e2lde, konusu hukuki veya fiili sebeplerden dolay\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan s\u00f6zle\u015fme, butlan yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na tabidir ve ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7tan tiibaren ge\u00e7ersizdir. Burada ge\u00e7erli olan butlan yapt\u0131r\u0131m\u0131ndan bahsedebilmek i\u00e7in, imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin konusu ile ilgili olmal\u0131 ve yaln\u0131z bor\u00e7lu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan de\u011fil, objektif mahiyette ve herkes i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu olmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bat\u0131l bir s\u00f6zle\u015fme, ba\u015ftan itibaren hi\u00e7bir h\u00fck\u00fcm ve sonu\u00e7 do\u011furmaz. Fakat, s\u00f6zle\u015fme yap\u0131l\u0131rken taraflardan biri imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 biliyor veya bilmesi gerekiyorsa ve buna ra\u011fmen di\u011fer taraf\u0131 bundan haberdar etmemi\u015fse, bu durumda kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131n u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131 menfi zarar\u0131\u00a0\u00a0kar\u015f\u0131lamakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr (Hukuk Genel Kurulu\u2019nun 28\/07\/2011 tarih ve 2011\/13-528 E., 571 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131).<\/p>

Somut olayda sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeleri yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 tarihte kat irtifak\u0131 veya kat m\u00fclkiyeti tesis edilememi\u015f olup, ka\u00e7ak yap\u0131 oldu\u011fundan y\u0131k\u0131ma tabi bir binad\u0131r. Taraflar da bunu bilmekte olup, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede kat irtifak\u0131 veya kat m\u00fclkiyeti kuruldu\u011fu zaman fera\u011f\u0131n verilece\u011fini belirtmi\u015fler ve gerek ilk vaad edilen ki\u015fi gerekse davaya konu sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin taraf\u0131 olan davac\u0131, davaya konu ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcmde oturmu\u015f ve oturmaktad\u0131r. Yukar\u0131da belirtildi\u011fi \u00fczere, \u0130mar Kanununun 18. maddesinin uygulanabilirli\u011fi olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, G\u00f6ksu Mesire alan\u0131 i\u00e7erisinde ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 jeolojik et\u00fct gereken alanda olup yap\u0131 ruhsat\u0131 ve onayl\u0131 mimari projesinin bulunmas\u0131 gerekmektedir. \u0130mar Kanununa ili\u015fkin h\u00fck\u00fcmler kamu d\u00fczeni ile alakal\u0131 olup, gayrimenkul m\u00fclkiyetinin kamu d\u00fczeninden do\u011fma s\u0131n\u0131rlanmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusudur. H\u00e2kim, bunlar\u0131 kendili\u011finden g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutmakla y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcd\u00fcr. Burada, Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 20. maddesinde (TBK 27. md) s\u00f6z konusu edilen objektif-afaki imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k durumu mevcut olup, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi bat\u0131ld\u0131r. Bu nedenle, subjektif-enf\u00fcsi imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131kta s\u00f6z konusu olan Bor\u00e7lar Kanununun 96. maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fcnce rayi\u00e7 bedelin istenmesi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir (Mustafa \u00c7emberci, Gayrimenkul Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi, 3. bask\u0131, sayfa 133, 136, 139) (Yarg\u0131tay 1. HD 04\/10\/1971 tarih, 8086\/6285, Yarg\u0131tay 3. HD 13\/05\/1961 tarih, 3424\/3246, Yarg\u0131tay 4. HD 24\/06\/1957 tarih, 1586\/4175, Yarg\u0131tay 15. HD 05\/04\/2006 tarih 2005\/1974 E., 2006\/2012 K.). Taraflar, konusu objektif imk\u00e2ns\u0131z olan s\u00f6zle\u015fme uyar\u0131nca verdiklerini iade ile m\u00fckellef olup, davac\u0131 da daval\u0131dan ancak daval\u0131n\u0131n haks\u0131z zenginle\u015fti\u011fi ilk sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesindeki 40.000.000TL bedelin denkle\u015ftirici adalet ilkesi uyar\u0131nca ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011feri talep edebilir. Kendi akidinden de sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde verdi\u011fi bedelin bu dava ile h\u00fckmedilenden kalan k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 denkle\u015ftirici adalete g\u00f6re talep edebilir.
\u00d6zel Dairece, bedel istemi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde bedel istemi hakk\u0131nda bir karar verilmesi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ilk bozma yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, Mahkemece bu bozma karar\u0131na uyulduktan sonra s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 13. maddesinin bu davaya konu tazminat talebinde uygulanmayaca\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle dava reddedilmi\u015f, direnme karar\u0131na konu bozma ilam\u0131nda fera\u011f verilememesinden dolay\u0131 sorumlulu\u011fun daval\u0131ya ait oldu\u011fu ve rayi\u00e7 de\u011ferin h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine de\u011finilmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk bozmaya uyulduktan sonra verilen karar gerek\u00e7esinde belirtildi\u011fi gibi, Sat\u0131\u015f Vaadi S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 13. maddesine g\u00f6re rayi\u00e7 bedele h\u00fckmedilebilmesi i\u00e7in sat\u0131\u015f vaadinde bulunan taraf\u0131n, fera\u011f vermek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn oldu\u011fu h\u00e2lde ka\u00e7\u0131nmas\u0131 veya fera\u011f\u0131 imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirmesi gerekmektedir.<\/p>

S\u00f6zle\u015fmeler, yukar\u0131da anlat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7tan itibaren konusu imk\u00e2ns\u0131z ve daha sonra da imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k h\u00e2linin devam etti\u011fi s\u00f6zle\u015fmeler olup, herkes i\u00e7in s\u00f6z konusu olan objektif imk\u00e2ns\u0131zl\u0131k s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fundan, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin 13. maddesine g\u00f6re de rayi\u00e7 de\u011fer istenemeyece\u011finden, Mahkeme karar\u0131n\u0131n belirtilen de\u011fi\u015fik gerek\u00e7elerle bozulmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fczden, Say\u0131n \u00e7o\u011funlu\u011fun rayi\u00e7 bedel istenebilece\u011fine ili\u015fkin bozma g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcne kat\u0131lam\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t

KAR\u015eI OY\n<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Davac\u0131, noterde yap\u0131lan sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayanarak, kendisine teslimli 8 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm meskenle ilgili olarak, sat\u0131\u015f vaadinin di\u011fer taraf\u0131 daval\u0131dan, HMK 111 anlam\u0131nda terditli dava a\u00e7arak, asli talep olarak ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm meskenin tapusunun verilmesini, bu kabul g\u00f6rmezse ikinci kademede, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn dava tarihindeki rayi\u00e7 bedelinin faiziyle verilmesini istemektedir.
Mahkemece yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda 09.05.2012 tarihinde as\u0131l talep a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan tapu istenmesine \u0130mar Kanunun 18\/son maddesi engel oldu\u011fundan ikinci kademedeki bedel i\u00e7inde s\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zel \u015fart\u0131nda fera\u011fdan ka\u00e7\u0131nma veya imk\u00e2ns\u0131zla\u015ft\u0131rma \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmedi\u011finden, bu talebin de dinlenmeyece\u011fi belirtilerek, davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

\u00d6zel Daire 20.11.2012 tarih 2012\/10497 E., 2012\/13354 K. say\u0131l\u0131 bozma ilam\u0131nda tapu iste\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden red karar\u0131n\u0131 gerek\u00e7e de\u011fi\u015ftirerek, sonucu itibariyle do\u011fru bulmu\u015f, ikinci kademedeki bedel i\u00e7in ise fera\u011fdan ka\u00e7\u0131nma ve imk\u00e2ns\u0131z h\u00e2le getirme h\u00e2linde tazminat \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, bedel hakk\u0131nda karar verilmesi gerekti\u011finden bahisle karar\u0131 bozmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

Mahkemece bozma sonras\u0131 15.05.2013 tarihinde \u00f6ncesindekine benzer \u015fekilde, yine red karar\u0131 verilmi\u015f, \u00d6zel Dairece bozmaya uyulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, ikinci kademedeki bedel iste\u011finin reddedilmi\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131 do\u011fru bulmayarak, tekrar bozma yapm\u0131\u015f, mahkemece bozmaya kar\u015f\u0131 direnilmi\u015ftir.
\u0130mara ayk\u0131r\u0131 ruhsats\u0131z bir yap\u0131da 8 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn davac\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda oldu\u011fu, kat irtifak\u0131 kurulamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, yap\u0131n\u0131n ruhsata ba\u011flanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tapusunun da verilemedi\u011fi, tapu iptalinin reddinde bir ihtilaf yoktur. \u0130kinci kademedeki 8 numaral\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn dava tarihindeki rayi\u00e7 bedelinin verilmesi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ihtilaf vard\u0131r.
Mahkemenin ahde vefaya ba\u011fl\u0131 direnmesi do\u011fru da g\u00f6r\u00fclebilir. \u00d6zel Dairenin ilk bozma karar\u0131 ve ikinci bozma karar\u0131 \u00f6demezlik def\u2019i birlikte ifa kural\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin fesih ve tasfiyesini kar\u015f\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sadece bedele y\u00f6nelik oldu\u011fu i\u00e7in eksiktir.<\/p>\n

Terditli dava a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan, asli talep olan tapu iste\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden, sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ayakta olmas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n, ikinci kademedeki rai\u00e7 bedel y\u00f6n\u00fcnden sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi fesihlidir. Bu ayr\u0131m dikkatten ka\u00e7\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, bozma eksik b\u0131rak\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. BK 205 (229) maddesi uyar\u0131nca, al\u0131c\u0131 davac\u0131n\u0131n kullan\u0131m\u0131nda olan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z b\u00f6l\u00fcm meskenin daval\u0131 tarafa iadesiyle birlikte bedele h\u00fckmolunmas\u0131 gerekece\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Aksi h\u00e2lde, BK81 (97)\u2019deki \u00f6demezlik def\u2019i kar\u015f\u0131lanmam\u0131\u015f, s\u00f6zle\u015fme dengesi bozulmu\u015f, harici sat\u0131ma ili\u015fkin 10.07.1940 tarih 2-77 i\u00e7tihad\u0131 birle\u015ftirme karar\u0131nda da ifade edilmi\u015f olan birlikte ifa imk\u00e2n\u0131 g\u00f6zetilmemi\u015f olur. Mahkemeye ba\u015fvurulmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, bedele ili\u015fkin uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k sonlanm\u0131\u015f, fesih ve tasfiyenin sonucu olan iadeye ili\u015fkin ihtilaf s\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclmemi\u015f olacakt\u0131r. Oysa yarg\u0131ya ba\u015fvuru ile ihtilaflar s\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015f olmal\u0131 idi.<\/p>\n

Kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 akitlerde, BK 106\/1 (123) temerr\u00fct varsa, bedel ifas\u0131 i\u00e7in ek s\u00fcre \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclmekte olup, BK107\/2 (124\/2) \u015fartlar\u0131 varsa, buna da ihtiya\u00e7 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabule imk\u00e2n vermektedir. Bozma karar\u0131n\u0131n, fesih ve tasfiyeye ili\u015fkin suskun kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, iadesini sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, bedele ili\u015fkin ihtilaf\u0131 s\u00f6nd\u00fcrmesine kar\u015f\u0131n iadeye ili\u015fkin ihtilaf\u0131 s\u00f6nd\u00fcrmedi\u011fi, \u00f6demezlik defi ile birlikte ifa imk\u00e2n\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>

H\u00e2l b\u00f6yle olunca, HGK\u2019n\u0131n 23.06.2020 tarih 2010\/255 E., 2010\/347 K. say\u0131l\u0131 emsal karar\u0131 da g\u00f6zetilerek, de\u011fi\u015fik ve ilave bozma yap\u0131lmas\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde oldu\u011fumdan, k\u0131saca a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131m sebeplere ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak, \u00e7o\u011funluk bozma g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kat\u0131lam\u0131yorum.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ifa olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 lehine tescil edilemez. Vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 aynen ifa yerine ilgili kanun uyar\u0131nca, TAZM\u0130NAT TALEP EDEB\u0130L\u0130R. T.C YARGITAY HUKUK GENEL KURULU ESAS NO: 2017\/1755 KARAR NO: 2020\/964 MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 1-) Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[871,640],"tags":[807],"yoast_head":"\nYarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"fr_FR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ifa olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 lehine tescil edilemez. Vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 aynen ifa yerine ilgili kanun uyar\u0131nca, TAZM\u0130NAT TALEP EDEB\u0130L\u0130R. T.C YARGITAY HUKUK GENEL KURULU ESAS NO: 2017\/1755 KARAR NO: 2020\/964 MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 1-) Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100090344741598\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@KurcalogluHukuk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@KurcalogluHukuk\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u00c9crit par\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1c68de35cc0dce6dbbe2360763923675\"},\"headline\":\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\"},\"wordCount\":8212,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK. E.2017\/1755 K.2020\/964\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Yarg\u0131tay B\u00fct\u00fcn Kategoriler\",\"Yarg\u0131tay Gayrimenkul Hukuku\"],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\",\"name\":\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/\",\"name\":\"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\",\"description\":\"Ceza hukuku- \u0130cra iflas hukuku, Miras hukuku, Bo\u015fanma hukuk, \u0130\u015f hukuku\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\",\"alternateName\":\"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-cropped-cropped-Adsiz-tasarim-1-2-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-cropped-cropped-Adsiz-tasarim-1-2-1.png\",\"width\":245,\"height\":65,\"caption\":\"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100090344741598\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/KurcalogluHukuk\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/kurcalogluhukuk&partners\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/kurcalogluhukuk&Partners\/?hl=tr\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1c68de35cc0dce6dbbe2360763923675\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"fr-FR\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22be8f8cfea2b6627b98e3bd7d7911a6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22be8f8cfea2b6627b98e3bd7d7911a6?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/","og_locale":"fr_FR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","og_description":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; Ta\u015f\u0131nmaz sat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin ifa olana\u011f\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda; ta\u015f\u0131nmaz\u0131n m\u00fclkiyeti vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 lehine tescil edilemez. Vaat alacakl\u0131s\u0131 aynen ifa yerine ilgili kanun uyar\u0131nca, TAZM\u0130NAT TALEP EDEB\u0130L\u0130R. T.C YARGITAY HUKUK GENEL KURULU ESAS NO: 2017\/1755 KARAR NO: 2020\/964 MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi 1-) Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki \u201csat\u0131\u015f vaadi s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine dayal\u0131 tapu iptali ve...","og_url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/","og_site_name":"Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100090344741598","article_published_time":"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@KurcalogluHukuk","twitter_site":"@KurcalogluHukuk","twitter_misc":{"\u00c9crit par":"admin","Dur\u00e9e de lecture estim\u00e9e":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1c68de35cc0dce6dbbe2360763923675"},"headline":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;","datePublished":"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/"},"wordCount":8212,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png","keywords":["Yarg\u0131tay HGK. E.2017\/1755 K.2020\/964"],"articleSection":["Yarg\u0131tay B\u00fct\u00fcn Kategoriler","Yarg\u0131tay Gayrimenkul Hukuku"],"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/","url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/","name":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964; - Kurçalo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png","datePublished":"2022-09-24T21:05:20+00:00","dateModified":"2022-10-19T18:17:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"fr-FR","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Yargitay.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/yargitay-hgk-e-2017-1755-k-2020-964\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yarg\u0131tay HGK., E.2017\/1755, K.2020\/964;"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/","name":"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","description":"Ceza hukuku- \u0130cra iflas hukuku, Miras hukuku, Bo\u015fanma hukuk, \u0130\u015f hukuku","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"fr-FR"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#organization","name":"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","alternateName":"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners","url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-cropped-cropped-Adsiz-tasarim-1-2-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/cropped-cropped-cropped-Adsiz-tasarim-1-2-1.png","width":245,"height":65,"caption":"Kur\u00e7alo\u011flu Hukuk & Partners"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/profile.php?id=100090344741598","https:\/\/x.com\/KurcalogluHukuk","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/kurcalogluhukuk&partners","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/kurcalogluhukuk&Partners\/?hl=tr"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/1c68de35cc0dce6dbbe2360763923675","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"fr-FR","@id":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22be8f8cfea2b6627b98e3bd7d7911a6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/22be8f8cfea2b6627b98e3bd7d7911a6?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/kurcaloglu.com"],"url":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14186"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14186"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14186\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14441,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14186\/revisions\/14441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14186"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14186"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kurcaloglu.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14186"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}