The documents of the case revealed that the court had concluded that the appellant did not have the right to sell the disputed property which was owned by the litigants

The court said that the court established its ruling on the grounds that the litigants had authorized one of them to manage their properties completely. The court said that the disputed loan contract revealed that the litigants were not debtor but guarantors. The court said that the litigant who received the authorization from the other litigants did not receive any money to be a guarantor and therefore the guarantee contract should be seen as a donation contract. The court said that the authorization did not mentioned the property that should be mortgaged and therefore the actions made by the litigant should not affect the legal positions of the other litigants. The court said that the contract signed by the litigant on the disputed property could not be used as an executive deed.