Cases That Are Not Simulation by the Deceased: In Which Transfers Does the Court of Cassation Refuse to Cancel the Title?

What is simulation by the deceased and under what conditions does it arise?

Simulation by the deceased is a decedent's transfer, in order to put assets out of the heirs' reach, of a registered immovable that he or she actually wants to give as a gift, in the apparent form of a sale or of a life-care contract (ölünceye kadar bakma). The intention declared in the land registry and the parties' real intention differ. This divergence is assessed under the principle of simulation in Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, together with Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code, Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law as to the formal requirements for the transfer of immovables.

The Unification of Case Law Decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) dated 01.04.1974, E. 1974/1, K. 1974/2 accepted that, where a registered immovable was in fact gifted but shown as sold and the inheritance rights were thereby infringed, the heirs whose inheritance rights are harmed, whether or not they hold a reserved portion, may request cancellation and registration. The Unification Decision dated 22.05.1987, E. 1986/4, K. 1987/5 determined that a claim for abatement and a claim for cancellation on the ground of simulation may be brought in a graduated or successive manner through consecutive actions. The decision dated 16.03.1990, E. 1989/1, K. 1990/2, for its part, did not accept the request to change the 1974 precedent.

Neither a sale recorded in the land registry nor a low price recorded there decides the outcome by itself

According to the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated 20.10.2022, E. 2020/194, K. 2022/1357, the essential question is whether the apparent sale in fact conceals a gift and whether there was an intent to put assets out of the heirs' reach. A rule on simulation cannot be built on kinship alone, on a reduction in the inheritance share or on a difference in price, without proof of the divergence in the declaration of intention.

Simulation by the deceased is not another name for every gratuitous disposition. A valid gift and a simulated sale; a gift concealed as a care arrangement and a genuine care contract; the transfer of a registered immovable and a first registration in a third person's name are not subject to the same legal regime. The common axis of the Court of Cassation's decisions is not the name of the transaction but the intent to put assets out of reach and the real legal relationship.

Sales made at a real price are not simulation by the deceased

The transfer of an immovable to a child, grandchild or another heir with a genuine intention to sell is legally valid. Whether the sale price was in fact paid, the buyer's financial position, the seller's reasonable grounds for selling and the consistency of the transaction with the parties' conduct are together important in assessing an allegation of simulation.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 30.10.2019, 2019/3643 E., 2019/5521 K., it was understood from a document the decedent signed on the date of sale and from other evidence that he had received the sale price; the first-instance court's decision upholding the action on grounds of simulation was quashed and the dismissal given afterwards was affirmed. Judicial result: A sale whose price was actually paid cannot be treated as invalid on the basis of a discrepancy in the price stated in the deed. Full text of the decision.

A low price in the land registry is not by itself proof of simulation

The difference between the price written in the land registry and the market value on the date of transfer is important evidence; but it does not replace all the other facts. In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 30.03.2026, 2025/4764 E., 2026/2411 K., the decedent's good relations with the other heirs, the fact that the claimant's witnesses did not give first-hand accounts of any intent to put assets out of reach, a transfer made with the claimant's knowledge and the other immovables retained were assessed together; the dismissal was affirmed because the allegation of simulation had not been proved. Text of the decision.

By what evidence are price and real intention assessed?

Bank movements close to the date of transfer, the source of the sale price, written payment documents, the buyer's income and assets at that time, the parties' statements, the market value of the transferred immovable on the date of sale and the decedent's reason for selling are considered together. An action is not upheld merely because the price is low; nor is it dismissed merely because the land registry says "sale".

Genuine transfers where care, service and labor constitute the consideration instead of money

In examining simulation by the deceased, the Court of Cassation does not limit the consideration for the transfer of an immovable to money transferred through a bank. Genuine care, service and labor contributions may, depending on the circumstances of the case, explain a transfer for value. What matters here is that a genuine care/service relationship existed in the past or in the relevant period and that the transfer was based on it; ordinary family closeness is not by itself regarded as consideration.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 30.03.2026, 2025/3935 E., 2026/2395 K., a transfer in the form of a sale made by an 81-year-old widowed decedent to the son who looked after him was assessed together with the care and gratitude relationship, the benefit given to the other child and the remaining assets. The Chamber quashed the regional court of appeal decision upholding the action on the ground that there was no intent to put assets out of the heir's reach. Judicial result: A transfer made in return for genuine care and labor cannot be regarded as simulated merely because there is no cash payment. Text of the decision.

A transfer made for credit or security purposes is not simulation by the deceased if there is no intent to put assets out of reach

A decedent may temporarily transfer an immovable so that his or her child or another relative can obtain credit or so that security is given for an existing debt. In such a transaction, the word "sale" in the title deed does not mean that the real reason for the transaction was to put assets out of the heirs' reach. The distinguishing element of simulation by the deceased is not a formal difference in the transfer of title but the concealment of a gift in fact made for the purpose of depriving an heir of his or her inheritance right. Where this special intent is absent in transfers made for credit and security purposes, an action for simulation by the deceased based on the 1974 Unification Decision cannot be upheld.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 17.02.2026, 2024/5093 E., 2026/1177 K., it was understood that the decedent had transferred the immovable so that his son could obtain credit; because the intent to put assets out of the heir's reach could not be proved in this transaction and no claim based on a fiduciary transaction had been made, the dismissal of the actions for simulation by the deceased and for abatement in the alternative was affirmed. Full text of the decision.

A request for return on the basis of a fiduciary transaction differs from an action for simulation by the deceased

A transfer of ownership made for credit/security purposes may often have the nature of a fiduciary transaction (inançlı işlem): the immovable is transferred for a particular purpose and is expected to be returned when the agreed condition is fulfilled. Failure to return the immovable does not in itself prove an intent to put assets out of the heirs' reach; the legal basis and proof of the right to return or the claim arising from a fiduciary transaction are different. Therefore, if the real dispute arises from a fiduciary transaction, relying only on simulation by the deceased may lead to the dismissal of the claim. The Court of Cassation's 2026 decision clearly shows the importance of identifying the cause of action correctly.

An open and properly made gift in the land registry is not a concealed gift

If the decedent openly gifted the immovable in the land registry and complied with the required official form, the classic pattern of simulation by the deceased, an apparent sale or care arrangement that is in fact a gift, does not arise. Therefore a valid open gift cannot be cancelled solely on the ground of simulation by the deceased, relying on the Unification Decision of 01.04.1974.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 28.11.2011, 2011/9964 E., 2011/11844 K., in a dispute where one part of the immovable was transferred by sale and another part by gift, the distinction was drawn expressly. Transactions carried out in the form of a sale in which simulation was established and dispositions genuinely made in the form of a gift were not given the same legal consequence. The decision's express statement is: "Since there is no discrepancy between the intention and the transaction made in a transfer of this kind, there is no possibility of speaking of simulation by the deceased." Text of the decision.

Even if the gift is valid, abatement of the reserved portion may be requested

Cancellation of the title on the ground of simulation by the deceased and abatement are not the same cause of action. That an open gift is valid does not remove the abatement claims of heirs with a reserved portion under Articles 560 and 565 of the Turkish Civil Code. However, abatement is not granted automatically for every gift: the reserved portion must be infringed, the disposition must be of a kind subject to abatement, and the preclusive periods in Article 571 of the Turkish Civil Code must be observed. In the calculation made after the decedent's death, the assets and liabilities of the estate, the disposable portion and the reserved portions are determined together.

A life-care contract made for genuine care is not simulated

A life-care contract is a contract imposing reciprocal obligations under Article 611 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations. The consideration for the asset transferred by the care creditor is the lifelong care performance undertaken by the care debtor. If the contract was in fact made for the purpose of being cared for and looked after, simulation by the deceased does not arise merely because the immovable has passed to one heir.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2013, 2012/14603 E., 2013/4077 K., the decedent's transfer of his only significant immovable under a care contract was not regarded as proof of simulation by itself, and the dismissal was affirmed because of the actual care relationship and the fact that the contract had lasted for years. The decision's approach rejects the preconceived view that "a person who transfers his only immovable cannot make a genuine care contract." Text of the decision.

How are old age, the duration of care and the value of the immovable assessed?

The decedent's age on the date of transfer, health and living conditions, the help actually given by the care debtor, the length of cohabitation, the weight of the immovable within the estate and the parties' family relations are important. Death shortly after the transfer, or the transfer of the whole of the assets, does not by itself determine the result. A care performance that is actually carried out is distinguished from an apparent care contract that merely conceals putting assets out of the heirs' reach.

A reasonable distribution that takes all heirs into account shows the absence of intent to put assets out of reach

The decedent may have made, during his or her lifetime, a distribution of assets to an acceptable extent, covering all the heirs and respecting the balance of rights. The aim of such a distribution is not to deprive an heir of the inheritance right but to distribute the assets during the decedent's lifetime. It is not necessary to give every heir exactly an equal amount or an immovable of the same kind.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 17.06.2025, 2023/5993 E., 2025/3092 K., the decision accepting simulation was quashed because it was found that immovables had also been provided to the daughters and that the decedent had made the distribution with regard to the balance of rights. The decision's express principle is: "for a distribution to be accepted as existing, it is not necessarily required that an equal share be given to every heir." Text of the decision.

Where benefits were given only to the sons, the defense of distribution is not sufficient on its own

The same principle applies in the opposite direction: if very valuable assets are passed to one heir while the others are excluded or limited to symbolic gains, the defense "I made a distribution" does not prove a genuine balancing. The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2019, 2017/1271 E., 2019/327 K. drew attention to the importance of an acceptable balance for an equitable distribution. Text of the decision.

The important distinction is this: That a benefit was conferred in the name of a grandchild or an heir's relative does not conclusively show either a distribution or simulation. The 2025 decision above shows that the claim that a daughter was taken into account in the distribution can be assessed on concrete facts in connection with the transfer made in the name of her daughter. The judicial assessment rests on the real economic and family context of the transaction.

The limit of the distribution defense in a transfer to a person who is not an heir

A benefit conferred by the decedent on a son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandchild or another relative cannot be accepted as a distribution among the heirs merely on the basis of the family tie. In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 31.05.2017, 2014/22382 E., 2017/3027 K., it was stated that a transfer made by the decedent to the husband of his living daughter could not be regarded as a distribution covering all the heirs, and the decision upholding the action on the ground of simulation was affirmed. Full text of the decision.

That said, the fact that a person who is not an heir appears as owner in the land registry does not require the concrete facts showing that the real distribution was made in favor of that heir to be disregarded. In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 17.06.2025, 2023/5993 E., 2025/3092 K., the regional court of appeal decision accepting simulation was quashed on the grounds that the immovable allocated to the claimant daughter had been registered in her daughter's name at her request, that the other daughter had also received a share, and that there was a family distribution that respected the balance of rights. Legal result: In the distribution defense, for whose inheritance share and benefit the disposition was made matters as much as the capacity of the apparent registered owner. Full text of the decision.

Distribution during the decedent's lifetime and the equalization in Article 669 of the Turkish Civil Code are not the same concept

In disputes over simulation by the deceased, the Court of Cassation in some decisions uses the word "equalization (denkleştirme)" to mean a reasonable and equitable inter vivos distribution made by the decedent with regard to all the heirs. The central question in this assessment is whether the decedent had an intent to put assets out of reach.

By contrast, equalization in succession under Article 669 et seq. of the Turkish Civil Code is a separate institution of inheritance law, concerning the statutory heirs' returning to the estate, or having set off against their inheritance shares, certain gratuitous benefits they received on account of their shares. The intention to distribute referred to in case law and the duty of equalization in Article 669 of the Turkish Civil Code are not legally identical. Official legislation record of Article 669 of the Turkish Civil Code.

A genuine exchange contract is not simulated merely because of a difference in value

An exchange (trampa; barter) is a contract in which the parties undertake to transfer assets of value to each other. An exchange in which the decedent obtains a genuine and meaningful counter-performance cannot be regarded as simulated merely because the inheritance right is reduced. Nevertheless, the word "exchange" in the land registry does not by itself eliminate an allegation of cancellation.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 05.12.2006, 2006/10914 E., 2006/12159 K., a genuine exchange transaction that was the subject of an allegation of simulation by the deceased was examined, and it was explained that the nature and value of the exchanged immovables on the date of transfer must be determined. According to the Chamber, if the property given as counter-value is of merely symbolic value, the transaction may have to be treated as in reality a transfer without consideration. There is therefore no absolute rule that the 1974 precedent cannot be applied to an exchange. Text of the decision.

The transfer of possession of an unregistered immovable is not within the scope of classic simulation by the deceased

The 1974 Unification Decision essentially regulates the special consequence of invalidity relating to the decedent's transfer, in the apparent form of a sale, of an immovable registered in his or her name in the land registry. The transfer of possession over an immovable that is not registered in the land registry differs in terms of form and the property regime. In this case, the ground of lack of official form for a concealed gift within the classic case law does not apply automatically.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 04.07.2023, 2021/9299 E., 2023/3914 K., in a dispute where there was no transfer made by the decedent before a land registry official and the immovable was unregistered before the cadastral survey, the dismissal of the request for cancellation based on simulation by the deceased was affirmed. Public text of the decision.

Different causes of action matter in transfers of unregistered immovables and claims to rights before the cadastral survey

A dispute over the transfer of an unregistered immovable does not mean that there is no right in every case. Matters such as the initial determination of the immovable, who were in possession, the content of the determination record and the protection of rights before the cadastral survey are assessed within the framework of the special provisions of the Cadastre Law No. 3402. On the other hand, in the transfer of movables or of rights treated as movable in nature, the official-form ground specific to registered immovables cannot be established in the same way.

An immovable bought in a third person's name with the decedent paying the price: the concealed-gift distinction

Where the decedent pays the price of an immovable bought from a third person but the immovable is registered directly in the name of his or her child or someone else, there is no transfer in which the decedent first became owner in his or her own name and then showed it as a sale. In judicial practice, this transaction may be characterized as a concealed gift (gizli bağış). The 1974 case law on simulation by the deceased does not apply directly to this purchase and first-registration structure.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 21.03.2024, 2023/3606 E., 2024/2379 K., in a case brought on the allegation that the decedent had contributed to the price of an immovable bought from a third person, the dismissal on the grounds that the provisions on simulation by the deceased could not be applied to a concealed gift and that there was no claim for abatement was affirmed. Text of the decision.

The decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 13.06.2024, 2024/1430 E., 2024/3468 K. also dealt with this distinction and, if its conditions exist, with the legal nature of the route of abatement. Text of the decision.

In a build-for-share construction, the registration of the apartments falling to the decedent in another person's name is not the same thing

An immovable bought from a third person with the price paid must not be confused with the registration, through the contractor, in another person's name of a claim to independent units arising from land owned by the decedent.

The decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 03.03.2011, 2011/1183 E., 2011/2466 K. concerned the direct registration in other persons' names of the independent units that would fall to the decedent after he had transferred land belonging to him to a contractor for a build-for-share construction. The Chamber stated that the 1974 Unification Decision may be applied in this sequence of transactions beginning with the transfer of land owned by the decedent and quashed the dismissal so that an investigation could be made. Text of the decision.

Judicial result: An allegation of simulation by the deceased arising from the transfer of the land the decedent owned cannot be rejected categorically merely because the independent unit was not registered in the decedent's name at one stage.

The special consequence of ten years' possession under Article 13/B-b of the Cadastre Law

Article 13/B-b of the Cadastre Law No. 3402 provides that a determination may be made in the name of a person who proves that he or she took over an immovable registered in the land registry from its owner or the owner's heirs outside the land registry and who has been in possession as owner without dispute and without interruption for at least ten years until the cadastral determination. This provision is a special regulation under which, in certain conditions, an acquisition outside the land registry is taken into account in law during the cadastral survey.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 14.04.2015, 2014/5014 E., 2015/5423 K., in a dispute where a registered immovable had been determined in the name of the new owner during the cadastral survey on the basis of an informal transfer and there had been ten years' undisputed possession, the decision upholding the action was quashed on the ground that there was no room for application of the 1974 precedent. Text of the decision.

The decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 02.03.2020, 2016/17213 E., 2020/1454 K. likewise affirmed, on the same conditions, the dismissal of an action brought on the allegation of simulation by the deceased. Text of the decision.

The ten years of possession until the date of determination here and the ten-year preclusive period from finalization of the cadastral record under Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 are different rules. One concerns the conditions of acquisition and registration, the other the time limit of the route of action based on a pre-cadastral cause. Without taking this distinction into account, it cannot be said that "once ten years have passed, an action for simulation by the deceased ends in every case."

The decedent's date of death in relation to the cadastral determination affects the application of the ten-year period

In applying the ten-year preclusive period in Article 12/3 of the Cadastre Law No. 3402, whether the heir acquired the inheritance right at the time of the cadastral determination matters. According to the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 27.03.2025, 2025/1345 E., 2025/1713 K., if the decedent died after the cadastral determination, the period in Article 12/3 relating to pre-cadastral causes is not applied to the heir on that ground, since the heir's right arises on death.

In the same decision, the dismissal of the action was based not on the preclusive period but on there being no room for application of the 1974 Unification Decision on simulation by the deceased in the transfer of an immovable that was unregistered before the cadastral survey. These two grounds for dismissal cannot be used in place of each other: the time limit for an action based on pre-cadastral rights and the conditions specific to simulation by the deceased concerning the transfer of a registered immovable are separate rules. Full text of the decision.

Even if the first transfer is simulated, the acquisition of a good-faith third party who relied on the land registry is protected

That an immovable was transferred in order to put assets out of an heir's reach does not mean that all subsequent land registry transfers will necessarily be cancelled. Under Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code, the acquisition of a third person who acquired a real right in good faith in reliance on the registration in the land register is protected; Article 1024 provides that persons who know or ought to know of the defective registration cannot benefit from this protection.

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 26.01.2021, 2019/4957 E., 2021/401 K., although a simulated first transfer originating from the decedent was established, the dismissal of the request for cancellation of title was affirmed with respect to some third persons who later acquired the immovable in reliance on the land registry and without knowing of the simulation. The acquisitions of persons who knew or ought to have known of the simulation did not benefit from the same protection. Full text of the decision.

The reason for dismissal here is not the absence of simulation by the deceased in the first transfer but the law's protection of the later good-faith acquisition of ownership. For this reason, the simulated first transfer and the later sale are separated; the good faith of the third person concerned is assessed on the basis of the transfers and records. That cancellation of title is not possible does not mean that the other legal claims arising from the first simulated transaction disappear automatically.

Indicators that, on their own, are insufficient and lead to dismissal of the simulation action

In the Court of Cassation's decisions, the intent to put assets out of the heirs' reach is usually determined not by a single piece of evidence but by the case as a whole. The following points are not accepted as conclusive proof of simulation on their own:

• The person who took the transfer being a child, grandchild, spouse or close relative.
• A difference between the price in the land registry and the market value found on site inspection.
• The decedent being of advanced age or in ill health in the last period of life.
• The heir who took the transfer living in the same home as the decedent or providing care.
• The decedent transferring his or her only immovable or the estate afterwards being small.
• The immovable having been registered in the name of only one of the heirs.
• Disagreement within the family about the transfer or the inheritance shares not being equal.

Likewise, the defendant's statement that he or she paid the price or the land registry's showing of the transaction as a "sale" is also not by itself proof of a genuine sale. Judicial review is carried out on the parties' real intention and on all the evidence.

The burden of proof in an action for simulation by the deceased, and the distinction from abatement

Who proves the intent to put assets out of reach?

Under Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the heir relying on the allegation of simulation must prove that the decedent's real intention was to put assets out of reach. The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation accepts that, because the heirs are not parties to the apparent contract in these cases, they may use every lawful form of evidence, including witnesses. Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, 2020/633 E., 2022/1579 K.

The transfer deed, the chain of title in the land registry, the real value on the date of sale, the certificate of inheritance, the decedent's total assets, income and bank documents, records showing the care relationship, witness statements and other family benefits are assessed together. The court cannot soundly decide the case by treating the price difference alone as decisive, or by dismissing it without examining the official name of the transaction.

If simulation by the deceased is not accepted, what routes remain for the heir?

A valid open gift, or a concealed gift for which the price was paid, may be subject to a claim for abatement where the reserved portion is infringed; for this, Articles 560, 565 and 571 of the Turkish Civil Code are applied separately. The right of abatement belongs to heirs holding a reserved portion. The one-year and ten-year periods in Article 571 of the Turkish Civil Code are preclusive periods: the right to bring an abatement action lapses one year after learning that the reserved portion has been infringed, and in any event ten years from the date of opening in the case of wills and from the opening of the succession in the case of other dispositions. If the annulment of a disposition revives an earlier disposition, the periods begin to run when the annulment decision becomes final. A claim of abatement can always be raised by way of defense. By contrast, a transaction for value in which genuine and reciprocal performances were carried out is not automatically subject to abatement merely because it reduced the heir's future share.

An action for cancellation and registration of title on the ground of simulation by the deceased and a claim for abatement are different legal claims. The decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law dated 22.05.1987 allows them to be raised in a graduated manner where needed. In a claim to rights based on pre-cadastral causes, preclusive periods of their own also apply.

Comparison: Transactions that are not simulation by the deceased and the limits of cancellation of title

In exchanges and in build-for-share construction, the type of transaction and the real intention are assessed together. The rows on the good-faith third party and the cadastral periods show the limits of cancellation of title, apart from whether the first transfer was simulated.

Conclusion

Simulation by the deceased is the legal consequence not of every unequal benefit conferred by the decedent, but of the divergence between the apparent transaction set up to put assets out of the heirs' reach and the real transaction it conceals. A genuine sale, a care and service relationship whose consideration is performed, a properly made open gift, a fiduciary transfer made for genuine credit-security purposes and a reasonable distribution that takes all the heirs into account cannot be regarded as simulation by the deceased merely because of the transfer of title or the reduction of an inheritance share. Unregistered immovables, first registration in a third person's name and the special cadastral provisions of Law No. 3402 limit the field of application of the 1974 precedent. Even if the first transfer was simulated, the acquisition of a later third person who relied on the land registry in good faith is protected under Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code.

However, that a transaction falls outside classic simulation by the deceased does not mean that the heir has no other right in every case. For valid benefits, abatement of the reserved portion; for the cadastre and other legal relationships, the relevant special causes of action are also important. For a sound legal outcome, the chain of title, the real type of the contract, the decedent's intent to put assets out of reach and the benefits conferred on all the heirs must first be determined together.

Frequently Asked Questions

If the sale price is shown as low in the land registry, does simulation by the deceased arise?

No, not by itself. The difference in the sale price is important evidence, but it is assessed together with the real intention, the fact of payment, the buyer's purchasing power and other conditions. Decision 2019/3643 E., 2019/5521 K. of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation shows this distinction clearly.

If a father or mother sells a home to a child, can the other heirs request cancellation of title?

Not merely because the buyer is a child. In a genuine sale there is no simulation. Heirs who prove that the apparent sale was in fact a gift aimed at putting assets out of the heirs' reach may bring a claim for cancellation and registration on the ground of simulation by the deceased.

Is a life-care contract always treated as simulation by the deceased?

No. A contract made in return for a genuine duty of care and with the purpose of care is as a rule a contract for value. A different result arises if it is proved that, although care is shown in the land registry, the real purpose is a concealed gift and putting assets out of the heir's reach.

Can an action for simulation by the deceased be brought for an immovable openly gifted in the land registry?

Cancellation cannot be requested directly on the basis of the concealed gift in the form of a sale referred to in the 1974 Unification Decision. On the other hand, the possibility for heirs holding a reserved portion to seek abatement, if its conditions are met, is preserved.

Is it enough for simulation that not all the heirs were given equal property?

No. The Court of Cassation does not look for complete equality in an acceptable and equitable distribution. The real values of the benefits conferred on all the heirs and the intent to put assets out of reach are assessed together.

If the decedent bought a house in someone else's name, is cancellation of title possible?

The 1974 precedent on simulation by the deceased does not apply directly. The decedent did not transfer, in the form of a sale, a registered immovable held in his or her own name. Nevertheless, if the decedent's gratuitous benefit infringes the reserved portion, abatement is assessed separately.

Is there a statute of limitations or preclusive period in an action for simulation by the deceased?

A claim for cancellation and registration of title on the ground of classic simulation by the deceased is as a rule not subject to a statute of limitations or preclusive period. However, for actions based on pre-cadastral causes, Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 contains a separate period regime. In an abatement action, by contrast, the one-year period from learning and the ten-year preclusive periods from the starting dates in the law under Article 571 of the Turkish Civil Code apply; the abatement defense can always be raised.

Is an immovable transferred to a son so that he could obtain credit treated as simulation by the deceased?

A genuine credit or security transfer without an intent to put assets out of the heir's reach is not simulation by the deceased. In decision 1st CC, 17.02.2026, E.2024/5093, K.2026/1177, the Chamber affirmed the dismissal on this ground. A request for return that may arise from a fiduciary transaction rests on a separate legal cause.

If the first sale was simulated, is the title of the person who later bought the immovable also cancelled?

The acquisition of a third person who in good faith acquired a real right in reliance on the land registry is protected under Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code. Persons who knew or ought to have known of the simulation cannot benefit from this protection under Article 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code. The 1st CC applied this distinction in its decision of 26.01.2021, E.2019/4957, K.2021/401.

If the decedent dies after the cadastral survey becomes final, does the ten-year period run?

For the heirs of a decedent who died after the cadastral determination, the period in Article 12/3 of Law No. 3402 cannot be applied on the assumption that a pre-cadastral inheritance right had been acquired. 1st CC, 27.03.2025, E.2025/1345, K.2025/1713. The conditions for applying the 1974 precedent to the transfer of an unregistered immovable before the cadastral survey are different again.

Who bears the burden of proving simulation?

The heir who alleges simulation by the deceased. Evidence supporting the view that the decedent's real purpose was to put assets out of reach must be submitted. Because they are in the position of third persons who are not parties to the transaction, the heirs may use lawful evidence, including witnesses.

Sources

Basic legislation and unification decisions

• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098: Articles 19 and 237; Article 611 et seq. for the life-care contract.
• Turkish Civil Code No. 4721: Articles 6, 560, 565, 571, 669 et seq., 706, 1023–1024. Ministry of Justice Legislation Information System.
• Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100: Article 190 and the proof provisions relevant to the subject.
• Cadastre Law No. 3402: Articles 12/3 and 13/B-b. (Text in force via mevzuat.gov.tr).
• Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, 01.04.1974, E.1974/1, K.1974/2: The basic decision on simulation by the deceased. Civil General Assembly decision explaining the scope.
• Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, 22.05.1987, E.1986/4, K.1987/5: Graduated assertion of abatement and simulation claims. Decision.
• Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, 16.03.1990, E.1989/1, K.1990/2: No change to the 1974 decision. Decision.

Court of Cassation decisions on the subject

• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, 20.10.2022, E.2020/194, K.2022/1357: Real intention and intent to put assets out of reach. Full text.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 30.10.2019, E.2019/3643, K.2019/5521: Genuine sale and price difference. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 30.03.2026, E.2025/4764, K.2026/2411: A price difference alone is not sufficient as proof. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 17.02.2026, E.2024/5093, K.2026/1177: Distinction between simulation by the deceased and a fiduciary transaction in a transfer made for credit/security. Full decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 30.03.2026, E.2025/3935, K.2026/2395: Transfer in return for service, care and labor. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 28.11.2011, E.2011/9964, K.2011/11844: Distinction between official gift and abatement. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 21.03.2013, E.2012/14603, K.2013/4077: Life-care contract. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 17.06.2025, E.2023/5993, K.2025/3092: Reasonable distribution among the heirs. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 31.05.2017, E.2014/22382, K.2017/3027: Limit of the distribution defense in a transfer to a son-in-law who is not an heir. Full decision.
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, 21.03.2019, E.2017/1271, K.2019/327: Distribution and balance. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 05.12.2006, E.2006/10914, K.2006/12159: Simulation by the deceased and exchange. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 04.07.2023, E.2021/9299, K.2023/3914: Transfer of possession of an unregistered immovable. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 21.03.2024, E.2023/3606, K.2024/2379: Concealed gift and proof. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 7th CC, 13.06.2024, E.2024/1430, K.2024/3468: Concealed gift and abatement. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 03.03.2011, E.2011/1183, K.2011/2466: Registration directly in a third person's name in a build-for-share construction. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 14.04.2015, E.2014/5014, K.2015/5423: Cadastre Law Art. 13/B-b and possession. Decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 27.03.2025, E.2025/1345, K.2025/1713: Death after the cadastral survey and the condition of the Law No. 3402 Art. 12/3 period. Full decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 26.01.2021, E.2019/4957, K.2021/401: Acquisition of a good-faith third party after a simulated first transfer. Full decision.
• Court of Cassation 1st CC, 02.03.2020, E.2016/17213, K.2020/1454: Cadastral determination and the scope of the 1974 precedent. Decision.
• Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, 24.11.2022, E.2020/633, K.2022/1579: Proof of simulation and the heir's capacity as a third person. Full decision.