Title Transfers Between Parents and Children: Sale, Gift, Maintenance Contract, Simulation and the Rights of Heirs

Is a title transfer between a parent and a child legally possible?

Family closeness does not invalidate a land registry transaction

A mother or father may sell, gift or transfer to a child, in exchange for a suitable counter-performance, the immovable that he or she owns, provided the statutory conditions are met. The fact that the child will become a statutory heir in the future does not in itself remove the power of the parent, who is the current owner, to dispose of the property during his or her lifetime. Article 35 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) on ownership, capacity to act and the transfer of immovables apply together.

However, the family relationship may become significant in proving whether the price was paid and what the real purpose of the transfer was. A statement in the land registry that a sale took place does not indisputably mean that the sale price was paid; likewise, a statement that a gift took place does not mean that the benefit will have no consequences in inheritance law.

The legal label, the economic substance and the real intention of a transfer may differ

In determining the true nature of the transaction, the official deed, the contents of the contract, the payment documents, the value of the immovable on the transfer date, the family relationships and the conduct of the parties are assessed together. If there is another legal purpose behind the apparent transaction, discussions of simulation, concealed gift, equalization or abatement may arise. The conditions of these legal institutions are not the same.

Which legal method can be chosen for a transfer of immovable property within the family?

Genuine sale

In a genuine sale, the parties agree on a monetary price in return for the transfer of ownership of the immovable. For the sale of an immovable, official form and registration in the land registry are required under Article 706 of the TMK, Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law (Tapu Kanunu). Carrying out the transaction at the land registry directorate or before another authority empowered by law, and the registration of ownership, are separate but connected stages.

In a sale within the family, it is very important to document clearly how the price was determined, how it was paid and which transaction the payment relates to. A bank transfer, a payment description and account movements that are consistent with one another help in assessing disputes that may arise later; however, even a single bank transfer does not by itself prove that all the conditions of the transaction are genuine.

Genuine gift

If an immovable is to be transferred without consideration, the rules on validity and official form that apply to gifts must be observed. A genuine gift does not mean the concealment of a sale. The provisions of the gift contract, Article 285 of the TBK and the following articles, and the rules of the TMK on equalization and abatement in inheritance are applied together.

A genuine gift made to one of the children does not automatically amount to simulation merely because an equal amount of property was not also given to the other children. Nevertheless, once the succession opens, the equalization of a benefit made without consideration to a descendant and the abatement of benefits that infringe reserved portions may come into question.

Contract of maintenance until death

The contract of maintenance until death (ölünceye kadar bakma sözleşmesi) under Articles 611–619 of the TBK concerns the transfer of an asset value to the care creditor in return for lifelong care and supervision. As a rule, this contract is subject to the official form provided for in Article 612 of the TBK. A transfer made for the genuine purpose of care is not the same as a gift without consideration. The existence of a serious illness on the date of the contract is not in every case a condition of validity.

By contrast, if an apparent maintenance contract has been drawn up not for genuine care but solely with the intention of moving assets away from the heirs, simulation by the deceased (muris muvazaası) may be discussed. If the care is later not performed properly, this, unlike an initial claim of simulation, brings into play the provisions on breach of contract and termination. For a more detailed examination, reference may be made to our firm's existing article titled Title Cancellation and Registration in a Contract of Maintenance Until Death.

Transfer of bare ownership and reservation of the usufruct

A parent may transfer the bare ownership of the immovable to the child and keep the usufruct right for himself or herself. In this way, ownership and the powers of use and enjoyment are separated. However, reserving the usufruct right does not in itself resolve the question whether the transfer is a sale or a gift, or whether there was an intention to move assets away from the heirs.

The usufruct protects the immovable; it does not prove that the sale was genuine

That the bare ownership of an immovable is transferred in the form of a sale while the usufruct right remains with the parent is not, on its own, proof of simulation. The price, the economic strength of the parties, the other immovables and the real purpose are examined separately in the transaction. The termination and deletion of the usufruct should not be confused with the initial validity of the transfer of ownership.

Will and inheritance contract

If a parent aims for his or her assets to pass after death, he or she may consider dispositions mortis causa, such as a will or an inheritance contract, instead of an inter vivos transfer. These are not equivalent to a sale or gift that passes ownership during the owner's lifetime at the land registry. The TMK rules on form, capacity to dispose, reserved portion and annulment apply.

Notary, land registry directorate and official form in a title transfer

An oral agreement or family correspondence alone does not pass ownership

The official form and registration rules provided for the transfer of ownership of an immovable are mandatory. A private protocol drawn up within the family, a receipt for money or an oral statement of the parties does not take the place of the official transfer transaction. A promise to sell an immovable is a separate legal institution; the promise should not be confused with the transfer of ownership in the land registry.

The nature of the notarial act matters

Having a signature certified by a notary is not sufficient for every transaction for which the law requires official drawing up. It must be determined whether the transaction to be carried out is a sale, a promise to sell, a gift, a power of attorney or an inheritance contract; the competent authority and the required form must be checked separately for each.

Examinations required before the land registry transaction

The owner and the share ratio, mortgages, attachments, annotations, whether the property is a family residence, usufruct and habitation rights, restrictions on the owner's capacity, the document of representation, the nature of the immovable and possible acquisition restrictions should be examined. In transactions concerning a family residence, spousal consent and the protection regime under Article 194 of the TMK are also important. If the parties are not married or the immovable is not a family residence, this provision cannot be applied mechanically.

Is a sale by a parent to one child a transfer of assets away from the heirs?

When does simulation by the deceased arise?

In simulation by the deceased (muris muvazaası), the central issues are the difference between the decedent's real intention to make a gift and the sale or other onerous transaction declared in the land registry, and the intention to move assets away from the heirs. The Unification of Case Law Decision of the Court of Cassation dated 01.04.1974, No. 1974/1 E. and 1974/2 K., is the fundamental precedent in this area.

The transfer of an immovable to one child, the resulting inequality in value among the heirs, or the transfer having been made before death is not, on its own, simulation by the deceased. The real intention must be established on the basis of concrete facts.

Was the sale price actually paid?

The payment date and method of the price are assessed on the basis of facts such as bank movements, the buyer's income and savings, credit records, the value of the immovable and whether the payment was later returned. A defence of payment in cash is addressed separately according to the specific case and the rules of evidence. That the sale price appears low in the official deed may also not be sufficient on its own for simulation to be accepted; it may produce separate consequences in terms of tax.

The purchasing power of the child and the family relationship

The buyer's economic capacity on the transfer date, the source from which the immovable was acquired and earlier benefits made within the family are important. However, the assertion that the economic power was insufficient does not in itself guarantee that the action will be upheld; the entire file must be examined.

Could a genuine division have been made within the family?

Where the decedent, having regard to all of his or her children, made a genuine and reasonable distribution during his or her lifetime, this is significant in assessing a claim of moving assets away. Who received which immovable, whether money was given as a price or counter-performance, the distribution as a whole and the parties' declarations of acceptance should be investigated. It is also possible that some transfers are simulated and others genuine sales; each transaction is examined separately.

The Court of Cassation's approach to the defence of a genuine distribution

In the accessible part of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) dated 10.10.2024, E. 2023/5095, K. 2024/5537, there are assessments concerning the decedent's intention to distribute, the counter-performance given to the other heirs and the proof of the claim of simulation. This decision is one of the examples showing that all benefits must be investigated together; it is not a general rule declaring every distribution within the family valid.

How is a distinction between daughters and sons treated in the assessment of evidence?

That the decedent treated his or her daughters and sons differently may, together with witness statements and other facts, be the subject of an inquiry into the real intention. However, the assertion of inequality based solely on gender does not mean that the statutory conditions of simulation are necessarily met in the specific transfer. The genuine transaction and the alleged purpose must be substantiated with evidence.

Related articles: Cancellation and Re-Registration of Title Due to Simulation by the Deceased; Cases Not Regarded as Simulation by the Deceased.

If a genuine gift has been made, what rights do the heirs have?

A gift and simulation by the deceased are not the same action

That a gift was made openly and validly in the land registry does not mean that the rules of simulation by the deceased, which concern an apparent sale, automatically apply merely because the interests of the other heirs are affected. In a specific case, lack of capacity, defects of intent, non-compliance with form, equalization and abatement are separate legal avenues.

Equalization in inheritance for a gift made to a descendant

Under Article 669 of the TMK, statutory heirs may be obliged to take into account, for the purposes of equalization, the inter vivos benefits without consideration that they received on account of their inheritance share. A transfer of assets made by the decedent without consideration to a descendant is, as a rule, subject to equalization unless the contrary is expressly stated. The options of return or set-off are assessed within the framework of Article 671 of the TMK and the following articles.

Equalization does not turn a genuine sale of an immovable into a gift merely because it was made to an heir. Nor can every family support necessarily be brought into the equalization calculation; ordinary gifts and the special distinctions in the law are taken into account.

Infringement of the reserved portion and abatement

Abatement (tenkis) may come into question for benefits that harm the rights of heirs entitled to a reserved portion and that are subject to abatement by law, in accordance with Article 560 of the TMK and the following articles. Article 565 of the TMK regulates which inter vivos benefits may be subject to abatement. Not every benefit without consideration is subject to the same calculation method.

The one-year and ten-year periods in an abatement action

Under Article 571 of the TMK, the right to bring an abatement action lapses one year after learning that the reserved portion has been infringed; as to the relevant outer limit, it lapses ten years after the opening of the will in the case of wills and ten years after the date the succession opens in the case of other dispositions. The special situations in the law and the defence of abatement must be assessed separately.

In what respect do equalization and abatement differ?

Equalization concerns taking a benefit made without consideration into account in the division of the estate; abatement, on the other hand, aims at protecting the reserved portion. The standing of the claimant, the counterparty, the claim, the valuation and the time conditions may differ. Bringing claims in the alternative with respect to the same immovable should be assessed separately in terms of Article 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK).

Can a parent continue to live in the property after transferring it?

Securing this through usufruct and habitation rights

If the parent intends to continue living in the transferred immovable or to continue receiving rental income, limited real rights such as usufruct or habitation may be considered. The scope, registration, transferability, conditions of use and termination of these rights are not the same.

The surviving spouse and the family residence

The protection of the family residence, the spouses' property regime, inheritance and the creation of a real right over the residence are different matters. Provisions such as Article 194 of the TMK and, after death, Article 240 or 652 of the TMK apply only when their own conditions are met. Whether there is a family residence annotation and on what basis the legal protection rests must be examined separately.

Related articles: Usufruct and Right of Habitation; Contract of Maintenance Until Death.

What happens if the immovable was transferred to the child by power of attorney?

The scope of the power of representation and the duties of the attorney

Under the provisions of the TMK and the TBK, a power of attorney confers authority to carry out specific transactions. The attorney must act with loyalty and diligence within the meaning of Article 506 of the TBK. If, despite the existence of authority, the transaction is carried out contrary to the interests of the principal, this may be the subject of a claim of abuse of the power of attorney.

When the attorney sells to himself or herself or to relatives

In transactions in which the attorney has his or her own interest, the special authority, the scope of the transaction, the conflict of interest and the good faith of the third party are examined in particular. Granting a power of attorney does not give the attorney an unlimited right to dispose of the immovable. Whether the transaction is consistent with the principal's intention and instructions is investigated.

Does the old age or illness of a parent make a title transfer invalid?

Capacity of discernment on the date of the transaction

When capacity to carry out legal transactions is assessed under Articles 9, 10, 13 and 15 of the TMK, the person's capacity of discernment on the date of the transaction is important. Old age, or a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's disease, does not automatically result in invalidity for every transaction; medical records, the severity of the illness, the nature of the legal transaction and expert examination are significant.

The evidentiary value of a health report obtained afterwards

A report issued after the transaction may be important in explaining the situation on the date of the transaction; however, it does not automatically prove or refute capacity on that same date. The lawful obtaining of health data and its assessment together with notarial and land registry documents and witness statements are required.

Related articles: Old Age, Dementia and Capacity to Carry Out Transactions; Cancellation and Re-Registration of Title for Lack of Capacity.

If the title has been sold to a third party, what happens to the heir's right?

The first and subsequent acquirers are examined differently

The provisions on reliance on the land registry and wrongful registration in Articles 1023–1024 of the TMK may affect the right of the subsequent acquirer. The assertion that the first transaction was simulated or defective does not mean that the subsequent acquirer will in every case automatically lose the immovable.

If registration is not possible, a monetary claim

Where it is legally impossible to recover the immovable in kind, a claim for damages or a monetary claim may be considered depending on the specific relationship. These claims must be formulated in the statement of claim in a manner appropriate to their legal nature; if a third party subsequently acquires the immovable, Article 125 of the HMK is of particular importance.

The position of a spouse who died before the transaction, of the other children and of grandchildren

While the decedent is alive, an expectancy and an acquired inheritance right are different

During the parent's lifetime, the possibility that the children will become heirs in the future does not give them the power to prevent every disposition by the parent. The inheritance-law rights to be exercised in the future, such as simulation by the deceased and abatement, are separate from the claims that the person who is currently the owner may assert in respect of his or her own transaction.

The descendants of a child who died earlier

Under the rules on succession by parentela and succession by representation, the descendants of a child who died before the decedent may become heirs. The standing of the grandchildren to sue and their inheritance share are determined by the specific certificate of inheritance and the provisions of the TMK on inheritance.

Can an inheritance share be sold before the succession opens?

Under Article 678 of the TMK, contracts concerning an inheritance right that has not yet opened, made without the participation or permission of the decedent, are invalid. The provisions of Article 677 of the TMK on the transfer of an inheritance share after the succession has opened, on the other hand, are a separate regime. For this reason, family documents headed 'I have renounced my inheritance right for the future' should not be confused with a contract of renunciation of inheritance.

Tax and land registry fee consequences of a transfer of immovable property within the family

A sale and a gift are not the same fiscal transaction

A sale and a gift may be assessed differently in terms of the land registry fee, inheritance and transfer tax and other fiscal obligations. Using the word sale in the land registry does not take a genuine transfer without consideration outside tax examination. The fee base, the true state of the immovable and the legislation in force on the date of the transaction must be checked.

Transfers without consideration between parents and children in 2026

The current consolidated text of Article 16 of the Inheritance and Transfer Tax Law No. 7338 (Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi Kanunu), as published by the Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı), provides that, in a transfer without consideration made to one of the mother, father, spouse and children (except those made from an adopted child to the adopter), half of the rates in the tariff for transfers without consideration will be applied. The date of entry into force for 2026 and the day on which the event occurred are important for this provision. It is not correct to treat the reduction in rate as a tax exemption. The exemption amounts and tariff brackets must be checked separately every year.

The risks of showing a lower price

An unexplained difference between the price shown in the title deed, the actual payment and the official value records may create risk in terms of legal proof and fiscal liability. The rules of proof in tax law and in simulation by the deceased are not equal to each other; a low price on its own does not produce the same result in both fields.

Which actions can heirs bring?

Cancellation of title and registration based on simulation by the deceased

After the succession has opened, if the conditions of the 1974 Unification of Case Law Decision exist, the heir whose inheritance right has been infringed may request cancellation of the title and registration in accordance with the inheritance share. The standing to sue in the specific action, the immovable subject to the action and the relief sought must be determined carefully. As to the proof of simulation, as a rule the discussion of limitation periods and preclusive periods is not the same as in an abatement action; on the other hand, abuse of rights, procedural issues and problems concerning third parties may be assessed separately.

Abatement and equalization

After the succession has opened, whether a gift is subject to abatement or equalization is examined separately. In a claim for equalization, whether the benefit was made to a descendant without consideration and the express intention of the decedent are decisive; in abatement, the reserved portion and the statutory time limits are decisive.

Lack of capacity and defects of intent

Where it is asserted that the person lacked capacity of discernment on the date of the transaction, or that there was deception or duress, these may have different legal consequences and time limits. The transfer to the heirs of certain rights that arose during the person's lifetime must be distinguished from rights strictly attached to the person.

The competent court, procedural conditions and mediation

Subject-matter jurisdiction is determined according to the nature of the action; in actions concerning the immovable itself, the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the place where the immovable is located under Article 12 of the HMK is important. Division of the estate, dissolution of co-ownership, cancellation of title and pure monetary claims should not be regarded as subject to the same conditions for bringing an action. In particular, the mediation conditions of disputes concerning the division or dissolution of co-ownership of movables and immovables within the scope of Article 18/B of Law No. 6325, and of actions for cancellation of title based on other legal grounds, must be examined separately.

Interim injunction and Article 125 of the HMK

If there is a risk that the immovable will be transferred to a third party during the proceedings, an interim injunction may be considered under Article 389 of the HMK and the following articles. Bringing an action does not in itself prevent the transfer of the immovable. If the transfer takes place during the proceedings, the procedural options and problems of substitution of a party under Article 125 of the HMK may arise.

Which evidence should be preserved before an action?

Land registry and transaction documents

The official deeds, the transfers from the first registration to the present, the daily register (yevmiye) records, annotations, the current market value of the immovable, municipal data, and mortgage and usufruct records should be examined.

Bank records and economic situation

The source of the sale price, the bank movements on the transfer day, the payment capacity of the seller and the buyer, and credit and debt relationships should be investigated through records obtained by lawful means. It may be necessary to obtain account movements through the court.

Witness statements and family relationships

A witness should explain not only the hostility between the parties, but also events that the witness knows directly, such as the making of the payment, the use of the immovable, the genuineness of the care or the statements of the decedent. Hearsay statements of witnesses are distinguished from statements based on first-hand observation.

Comparison of the entire estate

The examination should not be confined to the immovable that is the subject of the action. The other immovables, money and company shares that the decedent owned on the transfer date, and the benefits made to other children, assessed together, may be decisive for the real intention and for the defence of a distribution.

Assessment in light of Court of Cassation decisions

The scope of the 1974 case law on simulation by the deceased

The decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) dated 01.04.1974, E. 1974/1, K. 1974/2, is the fundamental basis of actions that examine a gift concealed by an apparent sale or similar transaction, and the intention to move assets away from the heirs. The Unification of Case Law Decision dated 16.03.1990, E. 1989/1, K. 1990/2, decided that there was no ground for changing the earlier approach.

A genuine distribution within the family and an example of rejection

In the accessible part of the reasoning of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 01.04.2019, E. 2016/8799, K. 2019/2284, the transfer made by the decedent to the other members of the family and whether there was an intention to move assets away from the heir are assessed. The decisive point here is that a selected transaction must not be detached from the other transactions within the family.

The 2024 decision on the intention to distribute

In the accessible part of the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 10.10.2024, E. 2023/5095, K. 2024/5537, the defences of a genuine intention to distribute, the provision of counter-performance and the proof of the claim are discussed. The specific outcome and reasoning of the decision must be assessed together with the conditions of the case concerned.

Benefits without consideration to a descendant in equalization

In the accessible part of the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 27.05.2024, E. 2023/4071, K. 2024/2952, the difference in presumption between benefits without consideration to a descendant within the scope of Article 669 of the TMK and benefits made to other statutory heirs is explained. This distinction determines which subject of proof the claimant and the respondent will focus on.

Family-specific legal checklist before a title transfer

1. The real purpose should be determined as sale, gift, transfer in return for care, or a benefit after death.
2. The date on which the transfer will take place and the applicable legislation should be checked.
3. The owner, the share of the immovable and the encumbrances on the title should be verified.
4. Whether the property is a family residence and the conditions of spousal consent should be examined.
5. If there is a specific doubt as to capacity to act on the date of the transaction, an appropriate examination should be made.
6. The sale price and method of payment should be arranged in line with the real relationship.
7. The bank records and the transaction descriptions should be kept consistent.
8. In the case of a gift, its real legal nature should not be concealed.
9. In a transfer in return for care, the form and the scope of the care should be clear.
10. Usufruct or habitation rights should be examined for the parent's housing and income security.
11. The need for a statutory mortgage or other security should be assessed.
12. Benefits previously made to the other children should be recorded.
13. The equalization effect of a benefit without consideration to a descendant should be calculated.
14. The reserved portion and the possibility of abatement should be examined.
15. Will and inheritance contract alternatives should be compared for inheritance planning.
16. If the transaction will be carried out by power of attorney, special authority and conflict of interest should be investigated.
17. The real rights of third parties and the risk of a possible subsequent transfer should be considered.
18. The land registry fee and inheritance and transfer tax consequences should be calculated according to the real type of transaction.
19. The transaction documents and medical and economic records should be kept securely.
20. If a dispute arises in the future, which claim may be exercised by whom should be assessed in advance.

Conclusion

A transfer of immovable property between parents and children does not consist of a single land registry transaction. A genuine sale, a gift, a contract of maintenance until death, a transfer of bare ownership with the usufruct reserved, and a disposition mortis causa must be distinguished from one another in terms of their formation, proof, tax, inheritance and litigation consequences.

A claim of moving assets away from the heirs, a genuine benefit without consideration, equalization in inheritance, abatement of the reserved portion and capacity to carry out transactions are different legal problems. Combining these problems haphazardly under the same application may lead to loss of rights or to wrong claims. For an effective legal assessment, the real intention on the date of the transaction, the price, the economic conditions, the other benefits made within the family, and the land registry and bank records must be examined together.

In a transfer of assets within the family, the safe course is not merely to think about the possibility of litigation after the transaction has taken place, but to choose the right legal method from the outset, to secure the parent's rights and to foresee the effects under inheritance law.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a father sell his house to only one of his children?

Yes, he may make a genuine sale, subject to capacity to act and the requirements of official form. The genuineness of the transaction and any objections of the heirs are assessed on the basis of concrete evidence.

Can a mother gift her house to her daughter?

Yes. However, the official form of the gift, its tax consequences and its equalization and abatement effects after death must be assessed separately.

If the land registry states a sale, can an action for moving assets away from the inheritance not be brought?

No. If it can be alleged and proven that the transaction is an apparent sale, in reality a benefit without consideration, and that there was an intention to move assets away from the heirs, simulation by the deceased may come into question.

Is a low price shown in the land registry, on its own, simulation?

No. The market value on the transfer date, the actual payment and the other events are assessed together; in addition, fiscal liabilities may arise.

Does a house gifted to one of the children come into equalization in the inheritance?

For benefits without consideration to a descendant, the rule in Article 669 of the TMK and the express intention of the decedent are taken into account. The scope of each benefit is examined separately.

Are equalization and abatement the same thing?

No. Equalization concerns taking a benefit without consideration into account in the division of the estate, whereas abatement concerns the protection of the reserved portion.

Can an action for simulation by the deceased be brought while the decedent is still alive?

Whereas the heir's right based on simulation by the deceased relates to the opening of the succession, where the owner is alive, lack of capacity concerning his or her own transaction, abuse of the power of attorney or other rights are addressed separately.

Can a parent transfer bare ownership and continue to live in the house?

Creating a usufruct or habitation right in an appropriate form may be considered. The scope, registration and termination of the rights must be regulated separately.

Is a genuine maintenance contract also regarded as simulation by the deceased?

A genuine maintenance contract made for consideration is not automatically simulated. If an apparent maintenance contract has been used in order in reality to move assets away, a different assessment may be made.

If the transfer was made to a third party, can the title be recovered?

The good faith of the third party, reliance on the land registry and the chain of transfers may be decisive. If cancellation of the title is not possible, appropriate monetary claims are considered.

Does inheritance and transfer tax arise on a gift within the family?

In a genuine transfer without consideration, tax may arise according to the exemption and tariff conditions. The 2026 rate arrangement for transfers within the family applies according to the date of the transaction; there is no automatic full exemption.

Can an inheritance share be renounced before a parent dies?

The special provisions of Article 678 of the TMK and those on the contract of renunciation of inheritance must be assessed separately. It is not possible for an ordinary signed document within the family to be regarded as a valid renunciation in every case.

Sources and legal bases

1. Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu) No. 4721, Articles 9–15, 194, 495 et seq., 560–571, 669–678, 706, 1023–1024; Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu) No. 6098, Articles 19, 27–28, 36–39, 237, 285 et seq., 502–513, 611–619; Code of Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu) No. 6100, Articles 12, 111, 125, 190, 389 et seq.; Inheritance and Transfer Tax Law (Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi Kanunu) No. 7338, Article 16; Fees Law (Harçlar Kanunu) No. 492, tariff (4); Law No. 6325, Article 18/B. Legislation Information System (Mevzuat Bilgi Sistemi).
2. Inheritance and Transfer Tax Law (Veraset ve İntikal Vergisi Kanunu) No. 7338, current text. Current text of the Inheritance and Transfer Tax Law from the Revenue Administration (Gelir İdaresi Başkanlığı).
3. Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), 01.04.1974, E. 1974/1, K. 1974/2.
4. Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation, 16.03.1990, E. 1989/1, K. 1990/2.
5. Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 01.04.2019, E. 2016/8799, K. 2019/2284.
6. Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber, 10.10.2024, E. 2023/5095, K. 2024/5537.
7. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber, 27.05.2024, E. 2023/4071, K. 2024/2952.
8. Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, “Cancellation and Re-Registration of Title Due to Simulation by the Deceased”.
9. Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, “Equalization in Inheritance (Return to the Estate)”.
10. Gunes & Gunes Law Firm, “Title Cancellation and Registration in a Contract of Maintenance Until Death”.