Mitte Realty

Inaplicabilidade of the made use one in art. 1 of the Decree n. 20,910/32, art. 10, only, of the Decree n. 3,365/41, and art. 178, 10, interpolated proposition VI, of the Civil Code of 1916. Moved away preliminary. As observed, if they keep the idea of limitation for the similar indirect dispossession to the one for processory title, that is, 15 (fifteen) years, as it establishes the foreseen general rule in art.

1.238 20 of the Civil Code, using the same logic of edition of Abridgement 119 of the STJ. However the doctrinal divergence is well-known in what it refers to this subject. 11. CONCLUSION It is perceived that such institute is being valorado currently as a real action, exemplificando in the situations of forum of the action, in the limitation, in not the deduction of the parcel of indemnity in virtue of the improvements in the space of the good, in the extinguishing of the bond municipal tributary IPTU and in what it refers to the delaying interests. However not the intervention of the Public prosecution service, the attribution of compensatory interests and the fact of if deal with a indenizatria action, with all its procedural requirements and relative to the merit the same, they disclose a characteristic personal.

It is observed that such form to expropriate is controversa next to Great Letter, that cousin in such a way for the indicative declaration of the public interest how much for the previous indemnity, made use in article 182 3 ' ' The dispossessions of urban property will be made with previous and joust indemnity in dinheiro' '. Later it is verified that such action is covered of effect of contradictory nature that cause the legal unreliability. Soon, the necessity of the State in minimizing the occurrence of interventions disorganized in the alien properties is well-known, carrying through a basic planning in its action.