TAŞINMAZ SATIŞ VAADİNDEN DOĞAN HAKKA İLİŞKİN TERKİN EDİLMEMİŞ ŞERHİN ETKİSİ VE YARGITAY’IN KONUYA YAKLAŞIMI


Öncü A.

INONU UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, cilt.11, sa.2, ss.649-664, 2020 (Hakemli Dergi)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 11 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2020
  • Doi Numarası: 10.21492/inuhfd.809582
  • Dergi Adı: INONU UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: EBSCO Legal Source, HeinOnline-Law Journal Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.649-664
  • İnönü Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

According to article 28/(8) Land Registry Code (LRC), the priority notice must be deleted from the land register ex officio by the land registry officers. On the other hand, according to Statute of Land Registry, the deletion must be realized upon the request of the owner. Therefore these provisions cause a contradictory situation where the priority notice period expires, as to whether the land registry officer delete the land registry entry ex officio or upon request. Yet the effect of the priority notice automatically ends after five years where the application of the article 28/(8) of the LRC has a priority. Accordingly, if the real estate is transferred after the five-year period , the promise creditor should not be able to request the transfer of the property from the new owner based on this priority notice. The Turkish Supreme Court, in some of its decisions, adopted a view that if the priority notice is not deleted from the land registry, due to the fact that the new owner cannot rely on good faith claim, the promise creditor is justified in requesting registration from the new owner. Therefore in terms of the promise to sell, it is important to examine the relevant issue due to the different approaches regarding the legal situation that occurs when the priority notice period expires.