T.C.
YARGITAY
19. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130
E. 2010\/10572
K. 2010\/13213
T. 24.11.2010<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 SIRA CETVEL\u0130NE \u0130T\u0130RAZ DAVASI ( Maa\u015f Haczine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130\u015flemlerin S\u0131ra Cetveli Yerine Ge\u00e7ece\u011fi )
\u2022 MAA\u015e HACZ\u0130 ( Maa\u015f Haczine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130\u015flemlerin S\u0131ra Cetveli Yerine Ge\u00e7ece\u011fi )
\u2022 NAFAKA \u0130LAMI ( S\u0131ra Cetveline \u0130tiraz Davas\u0131 \u2013 Mahkemece Muvazaa \u0130ddias\u0131 \u00dczerinde Durulaca\u011f\u0131 )
\u2022 MUVAZAA ( S\u0131ra Cetveline \u0130tiraz Davas\u0131 \u2013 Nafaka \u0130lam\u0131na \u0130li\u015fkin Muvazaa \u0130ddias\u0131 \u00dczerinde Durulaca\u011f\u0131 )
2004\/m.83, 101<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00d6ZET : Dava s\u0131ra cetveline itiraza ili\u015fkindir. Maa\u015f haczine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler s\u0131ra cetveli yerine ge\u00e7er.
Nafaka ilamlar\u0131 taraflar\u0131 ba\u011flarsa da, bu hususta k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetin korunmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtildi\u011finden ve bu ilam 3. ki\u015fileri ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemece bu husus \u00fczerinde durulup muvazaa iddias\u0131 hususunda inceleme yap\u0131lmadan h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmamal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
DAVA : Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki s\u0131ra cetveline itiraz davas\u0131n\u0131n yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 sonunda; ilamda yaz\u0131l\u0131 nedenlerden dolay\u0131 davan\u0131n reddine y\u00f6nelik olarak verilen h\u00fckm\u00fcn s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekilince temyiz edilmesi \u00fczerine dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:
KARAR : Davac\u0131 vekili, m\u00fcvekkili taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131lan icra takibinde bor\u00e7lunun maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131n 1\/4\u2032\u00fcne haciz konuldu\u011funu, bor\u00e7lunun maa\u015f\u0131n\u0131n 1.400.-TL oldu\u011fu halde ayl\u0131k nafaka borcunun 1.554.-TL olmas\u0131 nedeniyle bor\u00e7lunun maa\u015f\u0131ndan hacizleri nedeniyle kesinti yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bor\u00e7lunun alacakl\u0131lar\u0131ndan mal ka\u00e7\u0131rma amac\u0131yla daval\u0131n\u0131n muvazaal\u0131 olarak bor\u00e7lu ile anla\u015f\u0131p 2007 ve 2008 y\u0131llar\u0131nda iki kez nafaka art\u0131r\u0131m\u0131na gitti\u011fini, bu nedenle bor\u00e7lunun maa\u015f haczi s\u0131ralamas\u0131nda ilk s\u0131radaki alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7mek suretiyle olu\u015fan s\u0131ra cetvelinin iptaline, m\u00fcvekkilinin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ilk s\u0131rada yer ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Daval\u0131 vekili, yetkili mahkemenin D\u00f6rtyol Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi olmas\u0131 ve davan\u0131n yasal s\u00fcrede a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle davan\u0131n yetki ve s\u00fcre y\u00f6n\u00fcnden reddini, taraflar aras\u0131nda muvazaal\u0131 anla\u015fma olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bor\u00e7lunun ayl\u0131k gelirinin 2.000.-TL \u00fczerinde olmas\u0131 nedeniyle davac\u0131n\u0131n alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ald\u0131ktan sonra 1,500.-TL kald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu miktar\u0131n da m\u00fcvekkilinin haciz yoluyla ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 paraya tekab\u00fcl etti\u011fini belirterek davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.
Mahkemece, s\u0131ra cetveline itiraz davas\u0131n\u0131n dinlenebilmesi i\u00e7in icra dairesince s\u0131ra cetvelinin yap\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, icra m\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnce herhangi bir s\u0131ra cetveli yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, ayr\u0131ca muvazaa iddias\u0131n\u0131n yerinde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 nedenle davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmi\u015f; h\u00fck\u00fcm davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1-Maa\u015f haczine ili\u015fkin i\u015flemler s\u0131ra cetveli yerine ge\u00e7er. Mahkemece s\u0131ra cetveli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle talep reddedilmi\u015fse de, ‘kald\u0131 ki’ t\u00fcmcesi ile bu hususu da mahkeme inceledi\u011finden, bu hususa ili\u015fkin temyiz talebinin reddi gerekir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2-Ancak nafaka ilamlar\u0131 taraflar\u0131 ba\u011flarsa da, \u0130\u0130K 101. maddesinde bu hususta k\u00f6t\u00fc niyetin korunmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtildi\u011finden ve bu ilam 3. ki\u015fileri ba\u011flamayaca\u011f\u0131ndan mahkemece bu husus \u00fczerinde durulup muvazaa iddias\u0131 hususunda yeterli inceleme yap\u0131lmadan h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmas\u0131 do\u011fru g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
SONU\u00c7 : Yukar\u0131da ( 1 ) nolu bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle davac\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00f6ndeki temyiz talebinin reddine, ( 2 ) nolu bentte a\u00e7\u0131klanan nedenlerle h\u00fckm\u00fcn temyiz eden davac\u0131 yarar\u0131na BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin harc\u0131n istek halinde iadesine, 24.11.2010 g\u00fcn\u00fcnde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C.YARGITAY19. HUKUK DA\u0130RES\u0130E. 2010\/10572K. 2010\/13213T. 24.11.2010 \u2022 SIRA CETVEL\u0130NE \u0130T\u0130RAZ DAVASI ( Maa\u015f Haczine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130\u015flemlerin S\u0131ra Cetveli Yerine Ge\u00e7ece\u011fi )\u2022 MAA\u015e HACZ\u0130 ( Maa\u015f Haczine \u0130li\u015fkin \u0130\u015flemlerin S\u0131ra Cetveli Yerine Ge\u00e7ece\u011fi )\u2022 NAFAKA \u0130LAMI ( S\u0131ra Cetveline \u0130tiraz Davas\u0131 \u2013 Mahkemece Muvazaa \u0130ddias\u0131 \u00dczerinde Durulaca\u011f\u0131 )\u2022 MUVAZAA ( S\u0131ra Cetveline \u0130tiraz Davas\u0131 \u2013 Nafaka […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":851,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1,9],"tags":[257],"class_list":["post-861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-haciz","category-manset","tag-surmanset"],"yoast_head":"\n