BOOK XIV ACTIONS[düzenle | kaynağı değiştir]
TERMS OF TURKİC JURISPRUDENCE.
● 1613. An action consists of a claim made by one person against another in Court. The person making the claim is called the plaintiff. The person against whom the claim is made is called the defendant.
● 1614. The thing claimed is the thing about which the action is brought by the plaintiff. It is also called the subject matter of the action.
● 1615. Estoppel is some statement previously made by the plaintiff which conflicts with the action he has brought, and which causes such action to be declared null and void.
CHAPTER I. CONDITIONS AND FUNDAMENTAL RULES RELATING TO AN ACTION AND THE DEFENCE THERETO.
SECTION I. CONDITIONS FOR THE VALIDITY OF AN ACTION.
● 1616. The plaintiff and the defendant must be of sound mind. A lunatic and a minor of imperfect understanding may not validly bring an action. Their tutors and guardians may act on their behalf in their capacity of plaintiff and defendant.
● 1617. The defendant must be known. Consequently, if the plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to a certain sum of money from one or more persons who are specified, inhabiting a certain village, the claim is invalid, and the defendant must be specified.
● 1618. The defendant must be present when the action comes on in Court. If the defendant fails to come to the Court, or to send a representative, action shall be taken as is set forth in the Book on the Administration of Justice by the Court.
● 1619. The subject matter of the action must be known. If it is not known, the action is invalid.
● 1620. The subject matter of the action may be made known by pointing it out, or by mentioning its qualities or by describing it. Thus, in the case of some specific piece of movable property, if such property is present in Court, it is sufficient to point it out. If it is not so present, it may be made known by mentioning the qualities description and value thereof. If it is real property, it may be designated by mentioning the boundaries thereof. If it is a debt, the nature, variety, description and amount thereof must be stated. These matters will be dealt with in the following Articles.
● 1621. If the subject matter of the action is some specific movable property and is before the Court, The plaintiff may bring an action and point to the thing claimed, asking for it to be restored to him, since the defendant has wrongfully dispossessed him thereof. If the subject matter of the action is not before the Court, but it can be sent for and produced without expense, it shall be placed before the Court for the purpose of the trial of the action, the giving of evidence, or swearing the oath. If it cannot be brought before the Court without expense, the plaintiff shall give a description and state the value thereof. In actions relating to wrongful appropriation of property, and in the case of pledges, it is not necessary to state the value.
T Example:- An action may validly be brought in which the plaintiff states that his emerald ring has been wrongfully appropriated, but fails to state the value, or even states that he does not know the value thereof.
● 1622. If the subject matter of the action consists of specific pieces of property, the nature, sort and qualities of which are different the one from the other, it is sufficient if the total value of the whole of them is stated. There is no need to state the value of each of them separately.
● 1623. If the subject matter of the action is real property, the name of the town and village or quarter and of the street and the four or three boundaries thereof, and the names of the persons, if any, to whom such such boundaries belong, together with the names of their fathers and grandfathers must be stated when the action is brought and when giving evidence. In the case of a person who is well known, however, it is sufficient to state his name and description. There is no need to state the names of his father and grandfather. Similarly, if the description of the boundaries may be dispensed with owing to their being so well known, there is no need to state the boundaries wither when bringing the action or giving evidence in connection therewith. The plaintiff may also validly bring an action stating that the real property the boundaries of which are set forth in a document he produces to the Court is his property owned in absolute ownership.
● 1624. The fact that the plaintiff correctly states the boundaries, but incorrectly states the length or area thereof in no way affects the validity of the action.
● 1625. In an action for the price of real property, it is not essential to state the boundaries thereof.
● 1626. If the subject matter of the action is a debt, the plaintiff must state the nature, variety, description and amount thereof.
Example:- It must be stated as regards the nature of the debt whether it is of gold or silver or as regards the variety whether it consists of Ottoman or English coin and in respect to the description whether it consists of sound or base coin. The amount must also be stated. If it is stated in general terms, however, to consist of so many piastres, the action is valid, and the amount in dispute will be considered with reference to the custom prevailing in the locality. If there are two types of currency recognised, and the circulation and standard of one is greater than the other, the amount will be construed with reference to the inferior currency. Again, if a person brings an action claiming so many pieces of five, the money is taken to be the black pieces of five, that is base coin, in circulation at the present time.
● 1627. If the subject matter of the action is some specific piece of property, there is no need to state how the ownership thereof was acquired, but the action may validly be brought by stating that the property in question is owned in absolute ownership. If it consists of a debt, however, the origin thereof must be stated, that is to say, whether it is price of something sold, or rent, or arising from any other reason.
● 1628. The effect of an admission is that it bears upon the subject matter of the admission. It does not bear upon the origin thereof and therefore an admission is not a cause of ownership. Consequently, no person may bring an action claiming something merely by reason of admission of the defendant.
(1). A brings an action alleging that certain property belongs to him, and that B has dispossessed him thereof and in addition has admitted that such property belongs to A. The action will be heard. But if A brings an action alleging that certain property is his because B, who has taken possession thereof, has admitted that it belongs to A, the action will not be heard.
(2). A brings an action alleging that B is owing him a certain sum of money on account of a loan and that B has admitted the debt. The action will be heard. But if A brings an action alleging that has admitted that he owes A certain sum of money on account of a loan, and that he consequently claims this sum from him, the action will not heard.
● 1629. The subject matter of the action must be capable of proof. Consequently, no action may validly be brought with regard to anything the existence of which can be shown to be impossible either by a process of reasoning or by custom.
Example:- A alleges that B is his son, B being older than A, and the matter of his birth well known. The action will fail.
● 1630. If the action is proved, judgement must be given against the defendant in respect to some particular thing.
(1). A gives something to B as loan for use. C then comes forward and claims that he is a relative of A requesting that such thing shall be lent to him. The action will fail. (2). A appoints B his agent for a certain purpose. C comes forward and alleges that he is A's neighbour and that he is a more suitable person to be appointed agent. The action will fail. The reason for this is that every person may lend his property for use to whomsoever he pleases as his agent and even though the matters alleged by the plaintiffs may be true, no judgement can be issued in respect to the defendant.
SECTION II. THE DEFENCE TO AN ACTION.
● 1631. A defence consists of making an allegation by the defendant in reply to an action brought by the plaintiff.
(1). A brings an action claiming a certain sum of money from B on account of a loan. B replies that he has paid A, or that A has released him from the debt, or that they have come to a settlement, or that the sum in question is not a loan, but is the price of the property sold to A, or that he made a transfer to A of a sum of money due to him from C, and that the sum in question was paid by A to him in respect of such transfer. This is B's defence.
(2). A brings an action against B stating that B became surety for the payment of a sum of money due to him from C. B replies that C has paid the sum in question. This is B's defence.
(3). A brings an action against B stating that B is in possession of property belonging to him. B replies that some time ago C brought an action against him in respect to some property and that at the trial of the action A gave evidence in favour of C. This is B's defence.
(4). A brings an action against the heirs to the estate of a deceased person, claiming a certain sum of money, which the heirs deny. A proves his claim, and thereupon the heirs allege that the deceased paid the debt in his lifetime. This is the heirs' defence to the action.
● 1632. Upon the defendant proving his defence, the action brought by the plaintiff is dismissed. If he fails to prove his defence, he may call upon the plaintiff to take the oath. If the plaintiff refuses to take the oath, the defendant's defence is proved. If the plaintiff takes oath, the action brought by the plaintiff is maintained.
● 1633. If any person brings an action against some other person claiming a certain sum of money from him and the defendant replies by stating that he has transferred the payment of the debt to some third person and that both parties agreed to such transfer and proves such statement in the presence of the person to whom he transferred the debt, the claim of the plaintiff is rejected and the defendant freed therefrom. If the person to whom the debt has been transferred is not present, the defendant is considered to have answered the claim of the plaintiff pending the arrival of such person.
SECTION III. PARTIES TO AN ACTION.
● 1634. If any person brings an action in respect to any matter, and the defendant admits the claim, judgement is given on the admission. If he denies the claim, the action is heard, and evidence may be given. If judgement is not given on the admission of the defendant, he does not become a party to the action by reason of his denial.
Example:- A brings an action against B alleging that B sent a messenger of his to by certain property and claims the price. If B admits the claim, he is bound to pay and hand over the price of the thing sold. If he denies, he becomes the defendant to A's claim whose case is then heard and who may produce evidence. If A brings an action alleging that B's agent for purchase bought such property, and the defendant admits the claim, B must pay and hand over the price of the sale. If he denies however he does not become defendant to A. In that case the plaintiff's action will not be heard.
Tutors, guardians and trustees of the pious foundations are excepted from this rule. Thus, if any person brings an action stating that the property of an orphan or of a pious foundation is his, and the tutor or guardian or trustee admit the claim, the admission is of no effect and no judgement may be issued based thereon. They may,however, make a valid denial and an action brought by the plaintiff as a result of such denial, and the plaintiff's evidence, will be heard. If an action is brought as the result of an admission based upon contract concluded by a tutor, guardian or trustee of a pious foundation, the action will be heard.
Example:- A tutor sells property belonging to a minor, having legal justification for so doing. The purchaser brings an action in connection therewith. An admission made by tutor is valid.
● 1635. In an action relating to some specific piece of property, the person is possession must be made defendant.
Example:- A wrongfully appropriates B's horse and sells and delivers it to C. B wishes to get his horse back. He must bring his action against the person in possession of the horse. If he wishes to recover the value of the horse, however, he must bring his action against the person who has wrongfully appropriated the horse.
● 1636. If a person brings an action claiming that he is entitled to property which has been purchased, it must be ascertained whether the purchaser has taken delivery of such property. If so, the defendant at the trial of the action and hearing of the evidence will be the purchaser only. There is no need for the vendor to be present. If the purchaser has not yet taken delivery of the property from the vendor, both the purchaser of the property, and the vendor as the person in possession of the property, must be present at the trial of the action.
● 1637. In actions relating to a thing deposited for safe keeping brought against the person with whom it has been deposited, or to a thing lent against the person borrowing it, or a thing hired against the person hiring it, or a pledge against the pledgee, both parties must be present. But if property deposited for safe keeping, or lent, or hired, or pledged has been wrongfully appropriated, the person in possession of such property may bring the action against the person wrongfully appropriating and there is no need for the presence of the owner. If such persons are not present, the owner alone may not bring the action.
● 1638. A person to whom property has been entrusted for safe keeping may not be made defendant in an action against the purchaser.
Example:- A brings an action against B alleging that he is in possession of a house which he brought from C for a certain sum of money, claiming that the house be handed over to him. B replies that C handed the house over to him for safe keeping. The plaintiff's claim fails and B is not obliged to prove that C in fact handed the house over to him for safe keeping. If A admits that C handed the house to B for safe keeping, but adds that thereafter C sold it to him and made him his agent to receive it from C, and A proves the sale and his appointment as agent, he is entitled to take the house from the person to whom it has been entrusted for safe keeping.
● 1639. A person to whom a thing has been entrusted for safe keeping cannot be made defendant in an action brought by the creditor of the person depositing the thing for safe keeping with him. Consequently, if a creditor proves before a person to whom property has been entrusted for safe keeping that a debt is owing to him by the person depositing such property, he cannot satisfy his debt from such property but, as is set forth in Article 799, a person who is entitled to maintenance from some absent person may bring an action claiming that the sum necessary for his maintenance shall be paid to him from money deposited by the absent person for safe keeping.
● 1640. A creditor may not bring an action against a person in debt to the person owing him money. Consequently, if any person proves before a person in debt to a deceased person that he has a claim against such deceased person, he may not obtain payment from the debtor. 1641. A vendor may not bring an action against a person who purchased something which he has sold to some other person.
Example:- A sells property to B. B takes delivery thereof and sells it to C. A may not bring an action against C alleging that B has bought the property from him and has taken delivery thereof without paying the price and that he claims the price from C, or that he claims the thing sold in order to exercise a right of retention over such thing until he has received payment of the price
● 1642. In the case of a deceased person, one of the heirs alone may become plaintiff, or act as defendant, in actions brought of behalf of or against such deceased person. In the case of an action brought to recover some specific piece of property from the estate, however, the heir in whose possession the property is, must be made defendant. The action may not be brought against an heir who is not in possession of such property.
(1). One of the heirs alone may bring an action to recover a debt owing to the deceased. After proving his claim judgement is given for all the heirs for the total amount of the claim. The heir acting as plaintiff can obtain his own part alone. He cannot obtain the shares of the other heirs.
(2). A person brings an action to recover a debt owing by the estate of a deceased person. He may bring the action in the presence of one of the heirs only, and this, whether such heir is in possession of property belonging to the estate or not. If the heir in question admits the debt in an action brought in this way, and this admission in no way binds the other heirs. If he does not admit the debt, and the plaintiff proves his case in his presence alone, judgement shall be given against the whole of the heirs. Upon the plaintiff proceeding to collect the amount of the debt from the estate, the other heirs may not call upon him to prove the debt again in their presence. They have the right, however, of defending the action brought by the plaintiff.
(3). If a person brings an action to recover a horse in the possession of one of the heirs only, prior to partition of the estate, and which he claims he deposited with the deceased for safe keeping, the heir in possession of the horse may be made defendant. No action will be heard against any other of the heirs. If the person in possession admits the claim, judgement should be given in accordance with such admission, which does not effect the other heirs. His admission is effective in respect to the amount of his own share only and the judgement shall state that his share is the horse belongs to the plaintiff proves his case, Judgement shall be given against the whole of the heirs. (See Art. 78).
● 1643. If an action is brought claiming some specific piece of property owned by several joint owners, the ownership arising out of some cause other than inheritance, one of the joint owners may not be made defendant in respect to the share of the other.
Example:- A brings an action claiming as his a house which has been purchased jointly by several persons, and proves his case in the presence of one of the joint purchasers only. If judgement is given in his favour, the judgement relates to such joint owner's share only and does not extend to the others.
● 1644. In an action brought in respect to places affecting the public interest, such as the public highway, where one member of the public only is plaintiff, the action shall be heard and judgement given against the defendant. 1645. In an action relating to things the benefit of which is jointly owned by two villages, as in the case of a river or grazing ground, the inhabitants of which are indeterminate in number, the presence of a certain number of them is sufficient. If they are determinate in number, however, it is not enough for some of them to be present, but the whole of them must be present either personally, or through their representative. ● 1646. The inhabitants of a village which are more than a hundred in number are considered to be indeterminate in number.
SECTION IV. ESTOPPEL.
● 1647. A statement contradicting a statement previously made with regard to the same matter invalidates an action for ownership.
(1). If a person arranges to purchase a piece of property, but before completing the purchase brings an action claiming that such property is his own absolutely, such action will not be heard.
(2). If a person states that he has no right to any particular thing, but, nevertheless, brings an action claiming that such property is his own absolutely, such action will not be heard.
(3). A brings an action against B asserting that he gave a certain amount of money to B to hand to C. A further states that B retained the money instead of giving it to C as directed, and that he instructed B to fetch the money and pay it over to C. The plaintiff establishes his case by evidence. If the defendant denies such statements but later, while admitting having received the sum of money for delivery to C, states that he has in fact delivered it to C, and seeks to bring an action in rebuttal of the plaintiff's claim, such action cannot be heard.
(4). A brings an action alleging that a certain shop in the possession of B is his property. B admits that the shop was formerly A's property, but asserts that A sold it to him on a certain date. A completely denies this statement, stating that they had never concluded a contract of sale and purchase. If B, the person in the possession of the shop, proves his case, the plaintiff cannot later be heard to say that he did in fact sell the shop to B, but the sale was a sale subject to redemption, or subject to a condition making the contract voidable.
● 1648. If a person admits that certain property belongs to another, he may not later bring an action claiming that such property is his, nor may he bring an action on behalf of any other person, such as his agent or guardian.
● 1649. If a person releases another from all actions, he may not later bring an action against such person claiming from him property which he asserts to be his own. This, however, will not prevent him from bringing an action on behalf of another person, in the capacity of such person's agent or guardian.
● 1650. A person who has brought an action claiming property on behalf of another person may not later bring an action claiming such property as his own. But after bringing an action on his own behalf he may bring an action on behalf of some other person in the capacity of such person's agent, the reason being that an advocate sometimes claims property in his own name, but a person who is himself a party to an action does not assert that the property belongs to another.
1651. One claim cannot be paid separately by two persons. Similarly, a claim arising from a single cause cannot be demanded from two persons.
● 1652. Estoppel operates to prevent two persons claiming the same thing, as in the case of an agent and the person appointing him and an heir and the person from whom he inherits, if estoppel would operate to invalidate a claim in an action by one person. Thus, if in an action an agent introduces a claim in conflict with an action previously instituted by his principal, such claim is invalid.
● 1653. If one of the parties admits the claim, the estoppel ceases to be operative. Example:- A brings an action claiming that he has lent a certain sum of money to B. A later brings an action asserting that the sum of money was by way of guarantee. The defendant admits this, whereupon the estoppel ceases to be operative.
● 1654. If the Court finds a statement to be false, the estoppel ceases to be operative. Example:- A brings an action claiming certain property in the possession of B. The defendant disputes the claim, alleging that the property belongs to C from whom he bought it. If the plaintiff proves his case, he gets judgement. The person against whom judgement is given has a right of recourse against the vendor for the price of the property, because B was estopped from having recourse against the vendor by reason of his admission that such property belonged to the vendor. The estoppel ceases to be operative, since the judgement of the Court has disregarded the admission.
● 1655. If the matter is subject to doubt, and the plaintiff can offer a satisfactory explanation, the estoppel is removed.
(1). A hires a house, and later brings an action against the lessor asserting that his father bought the house from him when he was a child, adding that at the time he hired the housed he was not aware of the facts of the case. If A can produce documentary evidence of the title the case will be heard.
(2). A hires a house and later brings an action against the lessor claiming that he had ascertained that such house had devolved upon him some time previously by way of inheritance from his father. The case will be heard.
● 1656. The commencement of the division of an estate is an admission that the property divided has been held in common. Consequently, a plaintiff is estopped from bringing an action after the division of the property, alleging that the property divided belongs to him. Example:- A, an heir, brings an action after the division of the estate asserting that he bought one of the things divided from the deceased person, or that the deceased person while in good health bestowed such thing upon him by way of gift and gave delivery thereof. Such action will not be heard. But if A asserts that the deceased person gave him the property in question while he was an infant and that at the time of the division of the property he was unaware of such fact, this is regarded as a valid excuse and the case will be heard.
● 1657. If it is possible to reconcile two apparently contradictory statements, and if the plaintiff does in fact explain away any apparent contradiction, there can be no estoppel. Example:-
(1). A admits that he is the lessee of a house. Later, he brings an action alleging that he is the owner of the house. The case will not be heard. But if explains away the contradiction by stating that he bought the house from the owner after he had hired such house, the case will be heard.
(2). A brings an action claiming the return of a sum of money advanced by way of loan. The defendant by his reply states that he has received nothing from him, or that the two parties had no business transaction together of any sort, or that he does not know the plaintiff. A proves his case. If the defendant later brings an action against A asserting that he has repaid the sum in question, or that A released him from repayment thereof, the defendant is estopped from bringing such action by reason of the contradiction. But if, upon the case being brought by A, the defendant replies that he owes nothing and when the plaintiff proves his case admits owing the sum, but asserts that he has since repaid it, or has been released from repayment thereof by the plaintiff, and proves his case, there is no estoppel.
(3). A brings an action against B alleging that he has deposited something with B for safe keeping and claiming the return thereof. The defendant replies denying the allegation and stating that no such thing was ever deposited with him for safe keeping. A proves his case by evidence and the defendant then seeks to defeat A by alleging that he has returned the thing to A and given delivery thereof. B is estopped from making such defence. If the thing entrusted to B for safe keeping is in the possession of B, the plaintiff takes the thing itself. If it is no longer in existence, however, B must pay A the price thereof. But if A brings an action and B replies alleging that no such thing belonging to the plaintiff has ever been deposited with him for safe keeping, and A then proves his case by evidence, and B admits that A deposited the thing with him for safe keeping, but that he has returned such thing to A and given A delivery thereof, B is not estopped.
● 1658. A person who admits being a party to an unconditional and perfectly valid contract, his admission being reduced to writing, is estopped from alleging later that the contract was entered into subject to a condition as to redemption, or is voidable. (See Art. 100).
(1). A sells and delivers his house owned in absolute ownership to B for an agreed price. A then goes into Court and makes an admission to the effect that he has sold his house to B, the boundaries whereof are as stated, such sale being unconditional and perfectly valid, for a certain sum of money. If a later, after his admission has been reduced to writing, brings an action stating that the sale was subject to a condition as to redemption, or that it was made subject to a condition rendering it voidable, such action will not be heard.
(2). If A settles an action which he has brought against B, and makes an admission in Court that the settlement has been validly made, and after such admission has been reduced to writing brings an action alleging that the settlement was made subject to a condition making it voidable, such action will not be heard.
● 1659. If A in the presence of B sells property held in absolute ownership, which he asserts is his own, to C, and gives delivery thereof to him, and B later brings an action alleging that such property is his or that he has a share therein, although he was present when the sale took place and kept silence without any valid excuse for so doing, it must be ascertained whether B is a relative of the vendor, or his or her husband or wife. If so, the action will not be heard in any case. If he is a stranger, the fact that he was present at the time the sale was concluded, does not of itself prevent the hearing of the action. On the other hand, if, in addition to being present when the sale took place, he keeps silence without any valid excuse for so doing while the purchaser deals with the property as though it were his own, such as by erecting buildings or pulling them down, or planting trees thereon, and then brings an action claiming that such property is his own, or that he has a share therein, such action will not heard.
CHAPTER II. LIMITATION.
● 1660. Actions relating to a debt, a property deposited for safe-keeping, or real property held in absolute ownership, or inheritance, or actions not relating to the fundamental constitution of a pious foundation, such as actions relating to real property dedicated to pious purposes leased for a single or double rent, or to pious foundations with a condition as to the appointment of a trustee, or the revenue of a pious foundation, or actions not relating to the public, shall not be heard after the expiration of a period of fifteen years since action was last taken in connection therewith.
● 1661. Actions brought by a trustee of a pious foundation relating to the fundamental constitution thereof or by persons maintained by such foundation may be heard upto a period of thirty-six years. They shall not be heard in any event, however, after the period of thirty-six years has expired.
Example:- A has held a piece of real property in absolute ownership for a period of thirty-six years. The trustee of a pious foundation thereupon brings an action claiming that the piece of real property in question is part of the land belonging to his pious foundation. The action will not be heard.
● 1662. Actions relating to a private road, to a right of flow and to a right of taking water, when relating to real property held in absolute ownership, shall not be heard after the expiration of a period of fifteen years. If they relate to real property which has been dedicated to pious purposes, however, the trustees thereof is entitled to bring an action relating thereto up to a period of thirty-six years. Actions relating to the government land and actions relating to private roads, to a right of flow and to a right of taking water, if they concern government land, shall not be heard after the expiration of a period of ten years since action was last taken in connection therewith.
● 1663. Limitation which is effective in this connection, that is to say, which prevents an action being heard, relates only to a period of time which has been allowed to elapse without any excuse. The effluxion of time which has occurred by reason of some lawful excuse,such as cases where the plaintiff is a minor,or a lunatic,or an imbecile,and that whether he has a guardian or not,or where the plaintiff has gone to some other country for the period of a journey, or where the plaintiff has gone to some other country for a period of a journey, or where the plaintiff has been in fear of the power of his opponent, is disregarded. Consequently, limitation begins to run from the time of the cessation or removal of the excuse.
(1) No attention is paid to time which has elapsed while a person was a minor. The period oflimitation only begins as from the time he reaches the age of puberty.
(2) A has an action against B, a person in authority of whom he stands in fear. If time has elapsedby reason of A's not being able to bring an action against B while in authority, this fact shall not prevent an action being brought. the period of limitation only begins to run from the date of the cessation of the power of B.
● 1664.The period of a journey is three days at a moderate speed, that is a distance of eighteen hours.
● 1665.If one of two persons living in places which are separated from each other by the period of a journey, meets the other person in one of such places once during a certain number of years, so that an action pending between them can be brought to trial, but neither of them takes any steps in the matter, no action may be brought by one against the other in respect to any matter which arose before the period of limitation began to run.
● 1666. If any person brings an action in Court against any other person in respect to some particular matter once in a certain number of years, without the case being finally decided, and in this way fifteen years pass by, the hearing of the action is not barred. But any claim made out of Court does not cause the period of limitation to cease to run. Consequently, if any person makes a claim in respect to any particular matter elsewhere than in Court, and in this way the period of limitation elapses, the hearing of an action by the plaintiff is barred.
● 1667. The period of limitation begins to run as from the date at which the plaintiff had the right to bring an action in respect to the subject matter of his claim. Consequently, in an action in respect to a debt repayable at some future definite date, the period of limitation only begins to run as from the date on which the debt fell due for payment, since the plaintiff has no right to bring an action in respect to the debt before the due date has arrived.
(1). A brings an action against B claiming from him the price of a thing sold to him fifteen years ago, subject to a period of three years for payment of the price. The action may be heard, since only twelve years have passed since the date of payment arrived.
(2). An action is brought in regard to property dedicated to pious purposes limited to children from generation to generation. The period for limitation is respect to an action brought by children of the second generation begins to run as from the date of the extinction of the children of the first generation, since the children of the second generation have no right to bring an action while the children of the first generation are alive.
(3). In actions relating to a marriage portion payable at a future date, the period of limitation begins to run from the date of the divorce or death of one of the spouses, since a marriage portion payable at a future date only falls due for payment on divorce or death.
● 1668. Limitation in respect to a person who is bankrupt only begins to run as from the date of the cessation of the bankruptcy.
Example:- A brings an action against B, who has been insolvent for fifteen years, and who recently has come into funds, in respect to a debt owing for a period of fifteen years, having refrained from bringing the action previously owing to B's being bankrupt. The action will be heard.
● 1669. If any person as mentioned above fails to bring an action without any excuse, such action is barred by effluxion of time and will not be heard during his lifetime, nor, on his death, will an action by his heirs be heard.
● 1670. If a person entitled to bring an action fails during a certain period to do so and on his death his heir likewise fails to do so for a certain period and the total of both periods amounts to the period of limitation, such action will not be heard.
● 1671. A vendor and purchaser, a person making and a person receiving a gift are like a person leaving property and a person inheriting property.
(1). A owns a piece of land for a period of fifteen years. B who owns a house abutting on to A's land takes no action during this period, and thereafter sells the house to a third person. The purchaser then brings an action against A alleging that A's land comprises a private road leading to his house. The action will not be heard.
(2). The vendor remains silent for a period and the purchaser similarly remains silent for a period, if the total amount of both periods amounts to the period of limitation, an action brought by the purchaser will not be heard.
● 1672. If some of a number of heirs in an action brought in respect to property of the deceased in the possession of some third person are barred owing to the period of limitation having elapsed, and others, by reason of some valid excuse, such as that they are minors, are not, and such action is successful, judgement shall be given in their favour for their share of the property, but such judgement shall be given in their share of the property, but such judgement shall not include the others.
● 1673. If any person admits that he has taken certain real property on hire, he may not claim to have become the owner of such property by reason of a period of more than fifteen years having elapsed. But if denies that he has taken it on hire and the owner states that the real property in question belongs to him absolutely, that he gave it on hire to him a certain number of years ago, and that he has always received the rent, the question will be examined as to whether the lease is generally known among the people, and if so, the action will be heard, but not otherwise.
● 1674. A right is not destroyed by the effluxion of time. Consequently, if the defendant explicitly admits and confesses in Court in a case in which the period of limitation has elapsed that the plaintiff is entitled to bring his action, the limitation is of no effect and the judgement will be given in accordance with the admission of the defendant. If the defendant, however, makes no admission in Court and the plaintiff alleges that he made the admission else where, the plaintiff will fail both on the original action and on the admission. But if the admission which is the subject of the action was reduced to writing at some previous date in a document known to contain the seal or handwriting of the defendant, and the period between the date on which such document was drawn up and the date of bringing the action is less than the period of limitation, an action on the admission will be heard.
● 1675. No period of limitation applies to actions concerning places appropriated to the use of the public such as the public highway, rivers and pasturing grounds. Example :- A has appropriated and held a pasture ground belonging to a particular village for a period of fifty years without his right thereto being disputed. Thereafter the inhabitants of the village bring an action against A in respect to the pasture ground. The action will be heard.
PROMULGATED BY ROYAL IRADAH, 9 JUMADI UL UKHRA, 1293.
MECELLE:Mecelle/Esbâb-ı Mûcibe Mazbatası
|MECELLE ESBÂB-I MUCİBE MAZBATASI ASLI. Mecelle/Esbâb-ı Mûcibe Mazbatası/Sadelestirilmiş|
MECELLE : MUKADDİME:INTRODUCTION -MAKALE-İ ÛLÂ .(1.KISIM) : İLM-i FIKHIN TARİF VE TAKSİMİ HAKKINDADIR .MAJALLA: PART I: Definition of Jurisprudence . MKK
MKK: MKK3: MKK/51-75
MC/51. MC/52. MC/53. MC/54. MC/55. MC/56. MC/57. MC/58. MC/59. MC/60. MC/61. MC/62. MC/63. MC/64. MC/65. MC/66. MC/67. MC/68. MC/69. MC/70. MC/71. MC/72. MC/73. MC/74. MC/75
|Madde 50 - Asıl sâkıt oldukda fer' dahi sâkıt olur.MC. MC/81, MC/661, MC/662, MC/1527, MC/1530|
|51||Madde 51 - Sâkıt olan şey avdet etmez. Ya'ni giden geri gelmez.|
|52||Madde 52 - Bir şey bâtıl oldukda anın zımmındaki şey dahi bâtıl olur.MC. MC/175, MC/523, MC/1566.; MA. 41.; TCK. 49, 50, 51, 60.; TBK ı, 6, 113; HUMK. 234|
|53||Madde 53 - Aslın îfâsı kâbil olmadığı halde bedeli îfâ olunur.MC. MC/488, MC/489, MC/891.; TBK. 43.|
|54||Madde 54 - Bizzat tecvîz olunmayan şey bi't-teba' tecviz olunabilir. Meselâ, müşteri mebî'i kabz için bâyi'i tevkîl etse câiz olmaz. Amma iştira eylediği zahîreyi ölçüp koymak için bâyi'a çuvalı verip dahi zahîreyi çuvala edicek zımnan ve teb'an kabz bulunur.|
|55||MC/55???mMadde Meseli, 55 hi12s:-i' - İbtidâen şâ9ylayı tecviz olunmayan şey bakâen tecviz olunabilir.
hibe etmek sahîh değildir.Amma bir mâl-ı mevhûbun bir hisse-i şâyi'asina bir müstahlik çıkıp da zabtetse hibe bâtıl olmayıp hisse-i bâkiye-i mevhûbün lehin malı olur.MC. MC/19, MC/24, MC/430, MC/858, MC/1466.; TMK. 2
|56||Madde 56 - Baka' ibtidâdan esheldir. MC/55, MC/429, MC/430.; TMK. 2|
|57||Madde 57 - Teberru' ancak kabz ile tamam olur. Meselâ, bir adam birine bir şey hibe etse kable'l-kabz hibe tamam olmaz.|
|58||Madde 58 Raiyye yani teb'a üzerine tasarruf maslahatâ menuttur.|
|59||Madde 59 Iltejelllîl-i Velâyet-i hâssa velâyet-i âmmeden akvadır. Meselâ, vakfın velâyeti kadınin velâyetinden akvadır. TMK. 262, 265, 266, 267, 272, 275, 405.; MC. MC/974, MC/975.|
|60||Madde 60- Yani bir kelâmın bir manaya hamli mümkün oldukça ihmâl yani manasız i vamamalıd MC, MC/40, MC/61, MC/1456.; TMK. ı, 2.; TBK. 18.|
|61||Madde 61 - Ma'nây-ı hakîkî mütaazzir oldukta mecaza gidilir. MC.MC/40, MC/60, MC/62, MC/1517.; TMK. ı, 2.; TBK. 18.|
|62||Madde 62 - Bir kelâmın i'mâli mümkün olmaz ise ihmâl olunur. Yani bir kelamın hakîkî ve mecâzî bir manaya hamli mümkün olmaz ise o halde mühmel yani manasız bırakılır. MC. MC/60, MC/61, MC/1577, MC/1629, MC/1697.; TMK. ı, 2.; TBK. 18.|
|63||Madde 63 - Mütecezzi olmayan bir şeyin bazını zikretmek küllünü zikr gibidir. MC. MC/60, MC/1041.; MA. 31, 36.; TBK. ı, 6.; HUMK 234.|
|64||Madde 64 - Mutlak ıtlakı üzere cârî olur. Eğer nassan yahut delâleten takyîd delîli bulunmaz ise. MC. MC/1, MC/2, MC/571, MC/572, MC/573, MC/819, MC/820, MC/1494, MC/1495, MC/1478, MC/1482, MC/1483, MC/1484.; TBK. 180.; HUMK 234.|
|65||Madde 65 - Hazırdaki vasıf lağv ve gaibdeki vasıf muteberdir. Meselâ, meclis-i hazır olan bir kır atı satacak olduğu halde şu yağız atı şu kadar bin kuruşa satdım dese icabı muteber olup yağız tabiri lağv olur amma meydanda Olmayan bir kır atı yağız deyu satsa vasıf mu'teber olmakla bey' mün'akid ol- MC. MC/107, MC/208,.; TMK ı, 2.; TBK. 18, 31.|
|66||Madde 66 - Sual cevapta iâde olunmuş addolunur. Yani tasdik, olunan bir sualde ne denilmiş ise mûcib onu söylemiş hükmündedir.|
|67||Madde 67 - Sâkit'e bir söz isnâd olunmaz. Lâkin ma'raz-ı hâcette sükût beyandır. Yani, sükût eden kimseye şu sözü söylemiş oldu denilemez, lâkin söyleyecek yer- MC. MC/281, 377]], 438]], 596]], MC/773, MC/805, MC/843, MC/847, MC/971, MC/1451, MC/1452, MC/1485, MC/1659, MC/1822.; HUMK 234.; TBK ı, 6, 31, 198-200, 221, 263, 387, 428.|
|68||Madde 68 - Bir şeyin umûr-u bâtınada delili ol şeyin makâmına kâim olur. Yani hakîkatine olan umûr-l bâtınada delîl-i zâhirîsi ile hükm olunur???. MC. MC/67, MC/183, MC/344, MC/769, MC/770, TMK 3.|
|69||Madde 69 - Mükâtebe muhâtaba gibidir.MC. MC/436, MC/1607, MC/1610, MC/1736.; TEK 5, 10.|
|70||Madde 70 - Dilsizin işaret-i malhûdesi lisan ile beyân gibidir.|
|71||Madde 71 - Tercümanın kavli her hususda kabul olunur.|
|72||Madde 72 Hatâsı zâhir olan zanna i'tibar yoktur.MC. 914, 1061, MC/1838.; TMK. ı, 2.; TBK. 18.; HUMK. 236, 254.|
|73||Madde 73 - Senede müstenid olan ihtimal ile hüccet yoktur.
Meselâ, bir kimse veresesinden birine şu kadar kuruş borcu olduğunu ikrâr hücc:ettiği takdirde eğer maraz-ı mevtinde ise diğer verese tasdik etmedikçe bu ikrârı değildir. Zira eğer vereseden mal kaçırmak ihtimali maraz-ı mevte müsteniddir. amma hal-i sıhhatda ise ikrârı mu'teber olur ve ol halde olan ihtimal mücerred bir nevi te-MC.MC/72, MC/74, MC/1568, MC/1578.; HUMK. 236, 254.
|74||Madde 74 - Tevehhüme i'tibar yokdur. MC. MC/72, MC/73, MC/75, MC/1013, MC/1161, MC/1192, MC/1741.; MA. 92.|
|75||Madde 75 - Bürhan ile sâbit olan şey ıyânen sabit gibidir.|
MKK: MKK/4 -MKK/75-100
MC/75 . MC/76 . MC/77 . MC/78 . MC/79 . MC/80 . MC/81 . MC/82 . MC/83 . MC/84 . MC/85 . MC/86 . MC/87 . MC/88 . MC/89 . MC/90 . MC/91 . MC/92 . MC/93 . MC/94 . MC/95 . MC/96 . MC/97 . MC/98 . MC/99 . MC/100
|MC/75||Madde 75 - Bürhan ile sâbit olan şey ıyânen sabit gibidir.● Article 75. A thing established by proof is equivalent to a thing established by ocular inspection.|
|MC/76||Madde 76 - Beyyine müdde'î için ve yemîn münkir üzerinedir. MC. MC/1461, MC/1463, MC/1613, MC/1817, MC/1818, MC/78, MC/79.; TMK. 6, 28, 157, 185.; TBK 42/1, 55/1, 103/11. ● Article 76. EVIDENCE IS FOR HIM WHO AFFIRMS; THE OATH FOR HIM WHO DENIES.|
|MC/77||Madde 77 — Beyyine hilâf-ı zâhiri isbât için ve yemîn aslı ibkâ içindir. MC. 8, 9, 11, 77, 81, 403, 967, 1774.● Article 77. The object of evidence is to prove what is contrary to appearance; the object of the oath is to ensure the continuance of the original state.|
|MC/78||Madde 78 - Beyyine hüccet-i müteaddiye ve ikrâr hüccet-i kâsıradır. MC. 80, 81, 1384, 1572, 1642, 1676.; HUMK. 236, 254, 299. ● Article 78. Evidence is proof affecting third person; admission is proof affecting the person making such admission only.|
|MC/79||Madde 79 - Kişi ikrârıyla muaheze olunur. MC. 79, 81, 1127, 1573, 1575, 1588, 1632, 1654. ● Article 79. A person is bound by his own admission.|
|MC/80||Madde 80 — Tenâkuz ile hüccet kalmaz, lâkin mütenâkızın aleyhine olan hükme halel gelmez.
Meselâ, şehidler şahâdetlerinden rücû' ile tenâkuz etdiklerinde şahâdetleri hüccet olmaz, lâkin evvelki şahâdetleri üzerine kâdî hükmetmiş ise bu hüküm dahi bozulmayıp mahkumunbihi şahidlerin tazmin etmesi lazım gelir. MC. 78, 90, 1729, 1730.
● Article 80. Contradiction and proof are incompatible; but this does not invalidate a judgement given against the person contradicting. Example:- Witnesses contradict themselves by going back upon the evidence they have given. Such evidence is not proof; but if the court has already given judgement based upon the original evidence, such judgement may not be set aside, but thewitnesses must pay the value of the subject matter of the judgement to the persons against whom judgement has been given.
|MC/81||Madde 81 — Asıl sâbit olmadığı halde fer'in sâbit olduğu vardır. Meselâ, bir kimse filanın filana şu kadar kuruş deyni vardır, ben dahi kefilim dese ve asil'in inkârı üzerine dâ'in iddi'â etse meblağ-ı mezburu kefilin vermesi lazım gelir. MC. 78, 1632. ● Article 81. Failure to establish the principle claim does not imply failure to establish a claim subsidiary thereto. Example:- A person states that A owes a sum of money to B and that he has the surety of A. Such person will be obliged to pay the sum in question if A repudiates the debt and B demands payment.|
|MC/82||Madde 82 — Şartin sübûtu indinde ana muallak olan şeyin sübûtu lazım olur. MC. 83, 84, 408, 494, 623, 1456, 1584.; TMK/2. ● Article 82. If the validity of a condition is established, the validity of anything dependent thereon must also be established.|
|MC/83||Madde 83 — Bi-kaderi'l-imkân şarta mürâat olunmak lâzım gelir. MC. 82, 84, 186, 187, 189, 287, 398, 468, 474, 777, 813, 884, 1073, 1166, 1420, 1337, 1402, 1561.; TMK. 2. ● Article 83. A condition must be observed as far as possible.|
|MC/84||Madde 84 - Va'dler suver-i ta'lîki iktisâ ile lazım olur. Meselâ, sen bu malı filan adama sat, eğer akçesini vermez ise ben veririm dese ve malı alan akçeyi vermese bu va'di eden kimsenin akçeyi vermesi lazım gelir. MC. 82, 83, 623. ● Article 84. Any promise dependent upon a condition is irrevocable upon such condition being fulfilled. Example:- A person tells A to sell a certain thing to B and informs A he will pay him in the event of B failing to do so, and B does in fact fail so to do. The person making the promise is obliged to pay the money.|
|MC/85||Madde 85 — Bir şeyin nefi zamânı mukâbelesindedir. Yani, bir şey telef olduğu takdirde hasârı kime âit ise anın zamanında demek olup ol kimsenin bu vechile zamanı ol şey ile intifâ'a mukâbil olur.
Meselâ, hıyar-ı ayb ile reddolunan bir hayvanı müşteri kullanmış olmasından dolayı bâyi' ücret alamaz. Zira kablen-redd telef olaydı hasarı müşteriye ait olacaktı. MC. 86, 87, 88, 236, 344, 393, 891, 903.● Article 85. The enjoyment of a thing is the compensating factor for any liability attaching thereto; that is to say, in the event of a thing being destroyed, the person to whom such thing belongs must suffer the loss and conversely may enjoy any advantages attaching thereto. Example:- An animal is returned by reason of an option for defect. The vendor may not charge any fee on account of the use of the animal, because if it had been fallen upon the purchaser.
|MC/86||Madde 86 - Ücret ile zamân müctemi' olmaz. MC. 85, 87, 88, 416, 469, 511, 536, 545, 548, 551, 596. ● Article 86. Remuneration and liability to make good loss do not run together.|
|MC/87||Madde 87 - Mazarrat menfa'at mukâbelesindedir. Yani, bir şeyin menfa'atına nâil olan anın mazarratına da mütehammil olur. MC, 85, 86, 88, 292, 1073. 1152, 1308, 1316, 1319, 1324, 1327, 1328. ● Article 87. Disadvantage is an obligation accompanying enjoyment. That is to say, a person who enjoys a thing must submit to the disadvantages attaching thereto.|
|88||Madde 88 - Külfet ni'mete ve nümet külfete göredir. MC. 85, 86, 87. ● Article 88. The burden is in proportion to the benefit and the benefit to the burden.|
|89||Madde 89 - Bir fiilin hükmü fâiline muzâf kılınır ve mücbir olmadıkça âmirine muzaaf kılınmaz. MC 90, 92, 93, 95, 9. Kizp, 293. ● Article 89. The responsibility for an act falls upon the author thereof; it does not fall upon the person ordering such act to be performed, provided that such person does not compel the commission thereof.|
|90||Madde 90 - Mübâşir yani bizzat fâil ile mütesebbib müctemi' oldukda hükm ol fâile muzaf kılınır. Meselâ. birinin tarîk-i âmmda kazmış olduğu kuyuya diğeri, birinin hayvanını ilkâ ile itlâf ezse o zâmin olup kuyuyu hafr eden kimseye zamân lâzım gelmez. MC. 89, 91. 92 193, 922, 1828; TCK 52, 6467.; TBK. 41, vd. ● Article 90. If a person performs any act personally and is implicated therein with the person who is the cause thereof, the person performing such act is responsible thereof. Example:- A digs a well in the public highway and B causes C's animal to fall therein and to be destroyed. B is responsible thereof and no liability rests with the person who dug the well.|
|91||Madde 91 - Cevâz-ı şer'i zamâna münâfi olur. Meselâ, bir adamın kendi mülkünde kazmış olduğu kuyuya birinin hayvanı düşüp telef olsa zamân lazım gelmez. MC 92, 93, 796, 798, 822, 224, 875, 924, 1075, 1192.; TCK. 52, 64-67, 78, 49-51. ● Article 91. An act allowed by law cannot be made the subject of a claim to compensation. Example:- An animal belonging to A falls into a well which B has dug on his own property held in absolute ownership and such animal is destroyed . No compensation can be claimed.|
|92||Madde 92 - Mübâşir müteammid olmasa da zâmin olur. MC. 91, 93. 912, 913. 926; 41 vd. ● Article 92. A person who performs an act, even though not intentionally, is liable to make good any loss caused thereby.|
|93||Madde 93 - Mütesebbib müteammid olmadıkça zâmin olmaz. MC. 91, 93, 913, 924; TBK 41 ● Article 93. A person who is the cause of an act being performed is not liable to make good any loss caused by such act unless he has acted intentionally.|
|94||Madde 94 -Hayvanâtın kendiliğinden olarak cinâyet ve mazarratı hederdir. MC. 81, 929, 931, 932. 933.939 ● Article 94. No liability attaches in connection with offences of or damage caused by animals of their own accord.|
|95||Madde 95 - Gayrın mülkünde tasarrufla emretmek bâtıldır. MC. 96, 97, 125, 657, 1007, 1510.: TEK. 411, 413.; 900 vd. ● Article 95. Any order given for dealing with the property of any other person held in absolute ownership is void.|
|96||Madde 96 - Bir kimsenin mülkünde anın izni olmaksızın âhar bir kimsenin tasarruf etmesi câiz değildir. MC, MC/27, MC/45, MC/95, MC/97, MC/365.MC/446*MC/799, MC/857, MC/919, MC/1075, MC/1078, MC/1079, MC/1459, MC/1546. ● Article 96. No person may deal with the property of another held in absolute ownership without suchperson's permission.|
|97||Madde 97 - Bilâ-sebeb-i meşrü' birinin malını bir kimsenin ahz eylemesi câiz olmaz. MC. 95, 96, 369, MC/891, MC/889.; TMK. 2.; TBK 61, 41 ● Article 97. No person may take another person's property without some legal reason.|
|98||Madde 98 - Bir şeyde sebeb-i temellükün tebeddülü ol şeyin tebeddülü makâmına kâimdir. MC. 255, 869.● Article 98. Any change is the cause of the ownership of a thing held in absolute ownership is equivalent to a change in that thing itself.|
|99||Madde 99 — Kim ki bir şeyi vaktinden evvel isti'câl eyler ise mahrûmiyetle mu'âteb olur. TMK. 285-286.; TCK. 343, 477.● Article 99. Any person who hastens the accomplishment of a thing before its due time, is punished by being deprived thereof.|
|100||Madde 100 — Her kim ki kendi tarafından tamam olan şeyi nakz etmeğe sa'y ederse sa'yi merduttur. MC. 19, 356, 368, 616, 898, 1658.; TMK. 3-4. ● Article 100. If any person seeks to disavow any act performed by himself, such attempt is entirely disregarded.|
MECELLE: 1.Kitap:Kitab-ul Büyu' .Book I:Sale
|Sale - Büyu' - ALIŞ VERİŞ]]|
MECELLE: 2.Kitap (Boş):Kitab'ul İcârât.(Boş) Majalla/BOOK II (Dolu)
|İcar . İcâr . İcârât . Hire (Adam kiralama, Arapça ecir) . Rent (Mülk kiralama). Kira . Kiralar . 1. a person who has been hired, especially in a cohort; 2. to exchange the services of for remuneration; 3. the state of being hired, or having a job; employment;|
|İcar||İcarat . İcar . İcâr . İcâre . İcâreten|
|Müstecir .||Kiralayan . Kiracı . Müstecirin vazifeleri . Renter formerly, law renter, tenant, lessee
|Mücir||Mücir . Mücirin vazifeleri|
MECELLE: 3.Kitap:Kitab'ul Kefâlet
MECELLE: 4.Kitap:Kitab'ul Havâle
MECELLE: 5.Kitap:Kitab'ul Rehn
MECELLE: 6.Kitap:Kitab'ul Emanet
MECELLE: 8.Kitap:Kitab'ul Hibe
MECELLE: 9.Kitap:Kitab'ul Hacr ve-l İkrah Veş-Şuf'a
MECELLE: 10.Kitap:KİTAB'UL ŞİRKET • Majalla:BOOK X: JOINT OWNERSHIP
|İstilahat||Terminoloji: Şirket (JOINT)|
|Kitab-ı Şirket/Düz metin|
MECELLE: 11.KİTAP:KİTÂBÜ'L-VEKÂLE (Vekalet Kitabı).KİTÂB-I HÂDÎ AŞAR:Bir Mukaddime 3 Bab (1449-1530 Maddeler arası)- Kitâbü'l-Vekâle/Düz metin - Book XI :AGENCY . Portal:Mecelle
|Terimler||Vekalet .Vekalet sözleşmesi|
MECELLE: 12. KİTAP: KSVİ - KİTÂBÜ'S-SULH VE'L-İBRÂ - KİTÂBÜ'S-SULH VE'L-İBRÂ/Düz Metin
MECELLE :13.KİTAP: KİTÂBÜ'L-İKRÂR (İKRAR KİTABI) KİTÂB-I SÂLİS-İ AŞAR
İKRAR HAKKINDA OLUP DÖRT BÂBI MÜŞTEMİLDİRBÂB-I EVVEL:İKRÂRIN ŞERÂ'İTİ BEYANINDADIR
|MADDE 1572 - İkrâr, bir kimse diğer kinmesnenin kendisinde olan hakkını haber vermekdir. Ol kimseye mukirr ve ol kimesneye mukarrun leh ve ol hakka mukarrun bih denilir.|
|Terimler (Istılahat)||İkrar . Mukirr .Mukarrun leh . Mukarrun bih|
MECELLE:14.KİTAP: KİTÂBÜ'L-DA'VÂ .KİTAB-I RÂBİ'İ AŞER. Kitab-ı Dava. Dava• Mecelle• Kitab-ı Dava/Düz metin• Kitab-ı Dava/Osmanî•[]•[]•[]•[]
MECELLE: 15.KİTAP: KBVT .KİTÂBÜ'L-BEYYİNÂT VE'T-TAHLîF . KBVT/Düz metin . Kitab-ı Beyyinat ve Tehalif eski. Kitab-ı beyyinat ve tehalif yeni buna yönlendir . DRİVE
|Tevatür. Beyyine . Beyyinât. Beyyinat. Tehalif.|
|KBVT/Fasl-ı Evvel||İlk fasıl:|
MECELLE: 16. KİTAP Kitab-ı Kaza (ANA)- KİTÂBÜ'L-KAZÂ - KİTÂB-I SÂDİS-İ AŞAR :KAZÂ HAKKINDA OLUP BİR MUKADDİME İLE DÖRT BÂBI MÜŞTEMİLDİR Kitab-ı Kaza/Günümüz Türkçesiyle Karşılaştırılmalı ve güncel Türkçe olup Güncel Türkesi gözden geçirilip mukayeler geliştirilmelidir. KİTÂBÜ'L-KAZÂ/Düz metin
|Mukaddime||Kitab-ı Kaza/Mukaddime : Bâzı Istılâhât-ı fıkhiyye beyânındadır.Kazâ hüküm ve hâkimlik ma'nâlarına gelir. Madde 1785 - Hâkim beyne'n-nâs vuku bulan da'vâ ve muhâsamayı ahkâm-ı meşrûiasına tevfikan fasl ve hasm için taraf-ı sultânîden nasb u ta'yîn buyurulan zâttır. MC/1805.
Madde 1786 - Hüküm, hâkimin muhâsamayı kat' ve hasmeylemesidir. Madde 1784 Kazâ hüküm ve hâkimlik ma'nâlarına gelir. Madde 1785 - Hâkim beyne'n-nâs vuku bulan da'vâ ve muhâsamayı ahkâm-ı meşrûiasına tevfikan fasl ve hasm için taraf-ı sultânîden nasb u ta'yîn buyurulan zâttır. Madde 1786 - Hüküm, hâkimin muhâsamayı kat' ve hasmeylemesidir. Bu dahi iki kısımdır. Kısm-ı evvel: Hâkimin hükmettim; iddi'â olunan şeyi ver demek gibi sözler ile mahkûmun bihi mahkûmun aleyhe ilzâm etmesi yani lâzım kılmasıdır. İşte buna kazâ-i ilzam ve kazâ-i istihkâm denilir. Kısm-ı Sânî: Hakkın yokdur, münâza'adan memnû'sun demek gibi sözler ile hâkimin müdde'îyi münâza'adan men' etmesidir. Buna dahi kazâ-i terk denilir. MC. 1331.; HUMK. 388-393. Madde 1787 — Mahkûmun bih, hâkimin mahkûmun aleyhe ilzâm ettiği şeylerdir ki, kazâ-i ilzam müdde'înin hakkını îfâ etmesi ve kazâ-i terkde müdde'înin münâza'adan vazgeçmesidir.MC. 1619. Madde 1788 - Mahkûmun aleyh, aleyhine hükmolunan kimesnedir. MC. 1676. Madde 1789 — Mahkûmun leh, lehine hükmolunan kimsedir. MC. 1697. Madde 1790 Tahkîm hasmeynin husûmet ve da'vâlarını fasl için rızâları ile âhar kimseyi hâkim ittihaz etmelerinden ibârettir. Ol kimseye fethateyn ile hakem ve mimlin zammı ve hâ'nın fethi ve kâf-ı müşeddede-i meftûha ile muhakkem denilir.Madde 1791 - Vekîl-i musahhar, mahkemeye ihzâr olunamayan müdde'â aleyhe hâkim tarafından nasb olunan vekîldir, MC, 1844.
|Hakim||Kitab-ı Kaza/BÂB-I EVVEL : 1 Fasl-ı Evvel :Hâkimin evsâfı beyânındadır. 2 Fasl-ı Sânî: Hâkimin âdâbı beyânındadır. 3 Fasl-ı Sâlis:Hâkimin vezâ'ifi beyânındadır. 4 Fasl-ı Râbii :Sûret-i muhâkemeye dâirdir.|
|Hüküm||BÂB-I SÂNÎ :1 Fasl-ı Evvel: Hükmün şurûtu beyânındadır . 2 Fasl-ı Sâni: Hükm-i gıyâbî beyânındadır.|
|Davanın rüyeti||BÂB-I SÂLİS: DA'VÂNIN BADEL-HÜKM RÜYETİ HAKKINDADIR.|
|Tahkim||BÂB-I RÂBİ' . TAHKîME DÂiR MESÂİL BEYÂNINDADIR|
|HÜKKÂMA DÂiR OLUP DÖRT FASLI HÂVîDİR
Fasl-ı Evvel: Hâkimin evsâfi beyânındadır Madde 1792 Hâkim, hakîm, fehîm, müstakîm ve emîn, mekîn, metîn olmalıdır. Madde 1793 - Hâkim mesâ'il-i fıkhiyyeye ve usûl-i muhâkemeye vâkıf ve deâvî-i vâkıfayı onlara tatbîkan fasl ve hasma muktedir olmalıdır. Madde 1794 Hâkimin temyîz-i tâmma muktedir olması lâzımdır. Fasl-ı Sânî: Hâkimin âdâbı beyânındadır Madde 1795 alış veriş ve mülâtefe Madde 1796 - Hâkim iki hasımdan hiçbirisinin hediyesini kabul etmez. Madde 1797 mütehâkimeynin ziyâfetine gitmez.Madde 1798 hânesine kabûl etmek ve biriyle halvet veyahut ikisinden birisine el ya göz veya baş ile işâret eylemek veya onlardan birisine gizli lakırdı yahut diğerinin bilmediği lisan ile söz söylemek gibi Madde 1799 -- Hâkim beyne'l-hasmeyn adl ile me'mûrdur. Binâenaleyh tarafeynden biri her ne kadar eşrâfdan ve diğeri ahâd-ı nâsdan olsa bile hîn-i muhâkemede tarafeyni oturtmak ve kendilerine imâle-i nazar ve hitâb etmek gibi muhâkemeye müte'allık muhâkemâtda tamâmıyla adi ve müsâvât ri'âyet etmesi lâzımdır.Fasl-ı Sânî: Hâkimin vezâ'ifi beyânındadır Madde 1800 - Hâkim, taraf-1 Sultândan icrây-ı muhâkemeye ve hükme vekildir, Madde 1801 -- Kazâ, zaman 've makân ile ve bazı husûsâtın istisnâsı ile tekayyüd ve tahassus eder. Ve bir mahkeme-i mu'ayyenede hükmetmek üzere nasbolunan hâkim ancak ol mahkemede hükmedip diğer bir mahalde hükmedemez. Ve kezâlik maslahat-ı âmme mülâhaza-i âdilesine binâen filan husûsa müteiallik da'vâ istimâ' olunmaya deyu emr-i sultânî sâdır olsa hâkim ol dalvâyı istimâd ve hükmedemez. Veyahut bir mahkeme hâkimi bazı husûsât-ı mu'ayyene istimâ'ına me'zûn olup da mâ'adâsını istimâ'a me'zûn olmasa ol hâkim ancak me'zûn olduğu husûsâtı istimâ' ve hükmeder. Mâladâsını istimâ' ve ve hükmedemez. Ve kezâlik bir müctehidin bir hususda re'yi, nâsa erfak ve maslahat-ı asra evfak olduğuna binâen onun re'yi ile amel olunmak üzere emr-i sultânî sâdır olsa ol husûsda hâkim ol müctehidin re'yine münâfi dîğer bir müctehidin re'yi ile amel edemez, ederse hükmü nâfiz olmaz. Madde 1802 - Bir da'vâyı malan istimâ' ve hükmetmek üzre nasb olunan iki hâkimden yalnız birisi ol da'vâyı istimâ' ve hükmedemez; ederse hükmü nâfiz olmaz. (1465.) maddeye bak. Madde 1803 - Mütedaddid hâkimi olan beldede hasmeynden birisi bir hâkimin ve diğer öbür hâkimin huzûrunda murâfa'a olmak isteyip de bu vechile beynlerinde ihtilâfvâki' olsa müddetâ aleyhin iddi'â eylediği hâkim tercih olunur. Madde 1804 - Bir hâkimin azli Madde 1806 Hâkimin istimâ' eylediği beyyine ile kendisi hükmedebilir. nâ'ib de . Şöyle ki, hâkim bir da'vâ hakkında beyyine istimâ'ı ve nâ'ibe ihbâr eylese nâ'ibi i'âde-i beyyine etmeksizin hâkimin ihbârı ile hükmedebilir ve hükme me'zûn olan nâ'ib bir husûsda beyyine istimâl edip de hâkime inhâ eylese hâkim i'âde-i beyyine etmeksizin nâ'ibin inhâsı ile hükmedebilir ammâ hükme me'zûn olmayıp da ancak tedkik ve istikşâf için beyyine istimâ'ına memûr olan kimsenin inhâsı ile hâkim hükmedemeyip bizzat istimâ'-ı beyyine etmesi lâzımdır. Madde 1807 Başka kazada hakimlik Madde 1808 - Davaya bakma yasagı Madde 1809 - Bir belde hâkiminin bir kimesne ile da'vâsı olduğu sûretde ol beldede dîğer hâkim varsa onun huzûrunda murâfa'a olurlar. muvellâ istid'â etmek. Madde 1810 - Hâkim ru'yet-i da'vâda el-akdemü fe'l-akdem kâ'idesine ri'âyet etmelidir. Madde 1811 istiftâ' etmesi câizdir. Madde 1812 - Hâkim, ğam ve ğussa ve açlık ve ğalebe-i nevm gibi sıhhat-ı tefekkküre mâni' olabilecek bir ârıza ile zihni müşevveş olduğu halde hükme tesaddî etmemelidir. Madde 1813 Hâkim murâfa'âtda icrây-ı tedkîkât etmekle beraber işi sürüncemede bırakmamalıdır.Madde 1814 sicillât defteri ilâmât ve senedâtı kayd muhafaza devir Fasl-ı Râbii:Sûret-i muhâkemeye dâirdir.Madde 1815 Hâkim muhâkemeye alenen icrâ eder. Fakat kable'l-hükm ne vechile hükmedileceğini ifşâ etmez. Madde 1816 — Hâkim evvelen müdde'îye da'vâsını takrîr ettirir. Ve evvelce da'vâsı tahrîren zabt olunmuş ise, davayı kırâaat ile mazmûnu kendisine tasdîk ettirilir . Madde 1817 Müddde'â aleyh, inkâr ederse hâkim müdde'îden beyyine talep eder. Madde 1818 müdde'â aleyhe yemîn teklîfi . Madde 1819Müddeinin yemin vermemesi Madde 1820 . nükûl . Madde 1821. Madde 1822 — sükut inkar sayılır.Madde 1823. Madde 1824 .Madde 1825 .Madde 1826.Madde 1827 BÂB-I SÂNÎ:HÜKME DÂiR OLUP İKİ FASLI MÜŞTEMİLDİR Fasl-ı Evvel:Hükmün şurûtu beyânındadır Madde 1829 Hükümde sebka-i da'vâ şartdır. Da'vâ sebk etmeden vukû' bulan hüküm sahîh olmaz. Madde 1830 -Madde 1831 Müdde'â aleyhin vekîli muvâcehesinde ikâme-i beyyine olundukdan sonra müdde'â aleyh bizzat meclis-i hükme hâzır olsa hâkim beyyine ile müddeâ aleyh üzerine hükmedebilir, Ve bilakis müddetâ aleyhin muvâcehesinde ikâme-i beyyine olundukdan sonra vekil meclise hâzır olsa hâkim ol beyyine ile vekîlin üzerine hükmedebelir.TAHKîMMadde 1841 Hukûk-ı nâsa mütedallık mal da'vâlarında tahkîm câizdir,Madde 1842 Madde 1843 Mahkemenin taaddüdü Madde 1844 Madde 1845 .Madde 1846 .Madde 1847.Madde 1848.Madde 1849- Madde 1850 - Madde 1851
MECELLE: Mecelle cemiyeti
|Başkan : Ahmet Cevdet Paşa|
|Üyeler||1) Filibeli Halil Efendi, 2) Seyfeddin İsmail Efendi, 3) Sirvanizâde Seyyid Ahmed Hulûsi Efendi, 4) Ahmed Hilmi Efendi, 5) Bağdatlı Muhammed Emin Efendi, 6) İbn-i Âbidinzâde Alâeddin Efendi, 7) Gerdankıran Ömer Hulûsi Efendi, 8) Şeyhülislâm Kara Halil Efendi, 9) İsa Ruhî Efendi, 10) Yunus Vehbi Efendi, 11) Abdüllatif Şükrü Efendi, 12) Ahmed Hâlid Efendi, 13) Karinâbadli Ömer Hilmi Efendi, 14) Abdüssettar Efendi|
|Oluşumu||Hanefî fıkhından muktebes bir medenî kanun vücuda getirmek için Celaleddin Devvanî’nin Def-i Mezâlim adlı eserinden mülhem olarak, şer‘î mahkemelerin yanı başında nizamiye mahkemelerinin bulunmasında bir mahzûr görmeyen Cevdet Paşa’nın muârızları ile olan mücâdelesi şöyle hulâsa olunabilir: Başta Fransa elçisi olmak üzere muârızları 1804 tarihli Fransız Medenî Kanunu’nun kabulüne taraftar idiler. Ticâret nazırı Kabulî Paşa Fransız Codé Civil’ini Türkçe’ye tercüme ettirerek tasdik için Meclis-i Vükelâ’ya getirmiş idi. Bu husûsun müzâkeresi için havâss-ı vükelâdan mürekkeb encümende Fuad Paşa’nın söylediği nutuktan, Şirvânî-zâde Rüşdi Paşa ile Cevdet Paşa tarafından gösterilen delîlleri dinledikten sonra, fıkıh kitaplarından muâmelâta dair, zamanın icaplarına uygun olan meseleleri toplayarak, Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye namı ile bir kitap kaleme alınmak üzere Cevdet Paşa’nın reisliği altında memleketin değerli âlimlerinden müteşekkil bir ilim cemiyeti kurulmasına karar verilmiştir. İşte Mecelle Cemiyeti diye meşhûr olan ilim cemiyeti budur. Cevdet Paşa Mecelle’nin ehemmiyetinden bahsederken, bunun bütün nizamî mahkemelerde tatbik edildiğini, Kıbrıs’ta bile İngilizler tarafından mer‘î tutulduğunu, Bulgaristan Emâreti’nin teşekkülünde Bulgarların önce Mecelle’yi kendi lisanlarına tercüme ederek kanunlarına esas olarak aldıklarını söylemiştir.|
|Tarihçesi||Mecelle’nin mukaddimesi ile birinci kitabı olan Bey’ 1286’da, 2. kitabı olan İcâre 1286’da, 3. kitabı olan Kefâlet 1287’de hazırlanmış ve ertesi senenin Muharrem’inde irâdesi alınmıştır. Yine bu sene Mecelle’nin 4. kitabı olan Havâle hazırlanmış ise de, bu bâbdaki cemiyet mazbatası epeyce çetin müzâkerelere marûz kalmıştır. Bu mazbatanın Sâdaret makamına takdiminden 8 gün sonra Divan-ı Ahkâm-ı Adliye nezâretinden azlolunan Cevdet Paşa’nın cemiyetten uzaklaştırılmış bulunması yüzünden çalışmalar aksamış ve bu kitap ancak senenin sonlarına doğru padişahın tasdikına sunulmuştur. 1287 senesi Şevvâl’inde Mecelle’nin 5. kitabı olan Rehin hazırlanıp Sâdaret makamına gönderilmiştir. Cevdet Paşa azledilmeden önce bu kitap oldukça hazırlanmış ve yazdığı müsveddeler kısmen tebyiz edilmiş idi. Yalnız rehinin son bahisleri olan akdin hükümlerinde bir eksiklik kalıp kalmadığını hakkı ile tetkike vakit kalmadan reislikten ayrılması üzerine fıkıhta rehinin en büyük hükmü sayılan, merhûnun telefi halinde borcun sukuta uğrayacağının tasrihi unutulmuştur. Cevdet Paşa’nın azlinden sonra zayıf bir surette teşekkül eden cemiyetin 6. kitabı olarak hazırladığı Vedia evvelki kitaplara uygun düşmediğinden her taraftan yapılan itirazlar ve tenkitler üzerine Cevdet Paşa’yı tekrar iş başına getirmek zarureti hâsıl olmuş ve bunun yerine vedia meselelerini de bir bâb halinde ihtivâ eylemek üzere Emânât kitabı yazılmıştır. 1289 yılı başlangıcında 7. kitap olan Hibe ve 8. kitap olan Gasp ve İtlaf neşredilmiştir. Bu kitapların baskı işleri ile uğraşıldığı sırada Mahmud Nedim Paşa’nın sadâret makamına gelmesi üzerine Cevdet Paşa tekrar cemiyet başından alınarak, arzusu hilâfına, Maraş valiliğine gönderilmiş ve bu yüzden yine bu iş yarım kalmıştır. Maraş vilâyetinin ilgâsı üzerine, İstanbul’a dönen Cevdet Paşa, sadrâzam Midhat Paşa tarafından, Mecelle’nin hazırlanmasına memur edildiğinden Hacir-İkrâh-Şüf’a adlı 9. kitap kaleme alınmıştır. Midhat Paşa’nın bu işe karşı gösterdiği husûsî alâka dolayısı ile toplantı yeri Bâb-ı Fetvâ’dan Bâbıâli’ye nakledilmiş olması yüzünden, Cevdet Paşa kendisini daha serbest bir muhitte bulmuş ve bu devrede hazırlanan kitapları, ilk devredekiler gibi, mûcip sebeplere dayanmak ve asrın yenilik bakımından olan icapları gözönüne alınmak suretiyle kaleme alınmıştır. 9. ve 10. Kitaplar, ihtivâ ettikleri hükümler bakımından, çok zengindir. Bunlar Bâbıâli vasıtası ile değil, Şeyhülislâm Turşucuzâde Ahmed Muhtar Efendi vasıtası ile, doğrudan doğruya padişaha sunularak, tasdik ettirilmiş ve keyfiyet Bâbıâli’ye Meşihat Dâiresi tarafından bildirilmiştir.
Şeyhülislâmın eski an’anede mevcut bulunan bu salâhiyetini 1293 Kanun-ı Esasî’si dahi teyit etmiştir. Meşrutiyet’in ikinci defa ilânından sonra da bu kanunun esaslı surette değiştirilen maddelerinden biri olan 29. maddenin son fıkrasında da “Şeyhülislâm muhtâc-ı müzâkere olmayan mevâddı doğrudan doğruya arzeder” kaydı vardır. Şeyhülislâmın yazılı olmayan hükümlerde imamların kavillerinden biri yerine diğerini koymak için “imam-ı müslimîn”e yapacağı arzın müzâkereye muhtac bir keyfiyet sayılmayacağı da âşikârdır.
1291 senesinde 10. kitap olan Şirket bastırılmış ve 11. kitap olan Vekâlet ve 12. kitap olan Sulh ve İbrâ’ya ait çalışmalar bitirilmiştir. Akşehirli Hasan Fehmi Efendi’nin yeniden şeyhülislâm olması üzerine kitapları Bâbıâli vasıtası ile arzı usûlüne dönülmüş ise de bu 12. kitaba ait mazbata Sadâret’e takdim olunmadan Cevdet Paşa’nın âni olarak Yanya valiliğine tayin olunması sebebi ile çalışmaları yine yüz üstü kalmıştır. Mâmafih Yanya’ya gittikten sonra da Cevdet Paşa, gayr-i resmî olarak, bu cemiyetin işleri ile uğraşmıştır.
Halbuki ikinci defa Maarif nazırlığına tayin olunduktan sonra bu husûstaki çalışmalarını az çok gevşetmiştir. Mâmafih Adliye nazırlığına ikinci defa gelen Cevdet Paşa’nın Mecelle’de bırakılan noksanı nezârete ilave olunan ticâret mahkemeleri dolayısı ile pek yakından hissetmesi ve usûl-i muhakemenin esaslı ve sâlim kaidelere raptının âcil bir ihtiyac halini alması üzerine, hukuk muhâkemesi usûlüne ait hükümleri de ihtivâ edecek olan Mecelle çalışmaları hızlanmış ve bu sırada cemiyetce tamamlanan ve 13. kitap olan İkrâr’ı Adliye nazırı unvanı ile imzalamıştır. 14. kitap olan Dâva 1293’te irâdeye sunulmuştur ve bunu 15. kitap olan Beyyinât ve müteâkıben 16. ve sonuncu olan Kazâ kitabı tâkip etmiştir. Bundan sonra cemiyet kasâme meselesi ile uğraşmış, mahkemelerce tatbikatta pek çok güçlüklere sebebiyet veren bu güç iş de irâdeye sunulan bir müzekkere ile sağlam esasa bağlanmıştır.Sultan Abdülhamid II.’in günden güne artan vehmi, cemiyete iştirâk edenlerin sayısı ne kadar az olursa olsun her toplantıyı endişe ile karşılaması yüzünden çalışmaları felce uğratmış ve Mecelle’nin 16. kitabından sonraki kitapların takdiminden vazgeçilmiştir.
|Mütealalar||Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır, 1909 yılında kaleme aldığı Mehâkim-i Şer’iyye ve Hükkâm-ı Şer’ Kanunu ve Esbâb-ı Mûcibe Mazbatası’nda “kanun-ı medenîmiz” olan Mecelle-i Ahkâm-ı Adliye ve Mecelle Cemiyeti hakkında şunları söylüyordu: “(…) bu devirler içinde yalnız Mecelle Cem’iyyet-i Celîlesi’nin eser-i himmeti olan kanûn-ı medenîmiz, kuvve-i kazâiyyemiz nâmına bir vesîle-i ibtihâc teşkil edebilirdi. Cem’iyyet-i müşârun ileyhânın idâmesiyle teşkîlât-ı adliyemizin ikmâline kadar o himmete mürâcaat olunmuş olaydı, Osmanlılar bugün pek muntazam bir kuvve-i kazâiyyeye mâlik olurlardı.”|
|Cevdet Paşa 1303 (h.) tarihinde 5. defa Adliye nazırlığına gelince, Mecelle işleri ile yeniden uğraşmaya imkân bulmuş ise de, eski arkadaşlarından yalnız Karin-abatlı Ömer Hilmi Efendi kalmış ve yeniden âzâ tayin edilenler ile cemiyet eski tecânüsünü kaybetmiştir. Nihâyet Bâb-ı Fetvâ’daki ictimâlar Abdülhamid II.’in vehimini arttırdığından Cevdet Paşa’ya yapılan itaptan ve Sadrâzam Said Paşa’nın padişahın arzusuna uygun mütâleası alındıktan sonra 26 Cemâziyelevvel 1306 tarihli irâde ile cemiyet ilgâ olunmuş ve Mecelle mesâisi resmen nihâyet bulmuştur.|