Decedent's Simulated Transfer and Title Cancellation: Moving Property Away from Heirs

Date of legal research: October 12, 2026

Decedent simulation (muris muvazaası) is the transfer by the decedent of a titled immovable that he or she actually intended to gift, under the appearance of a sale or another transaction for consideration, in order to move property away from heirs. Where its conditions are met, an heir whose inheritance right has been infringed may ask for the land registry entry to be cancelled and re-registered in his or her name, to the extent of his or her own inheritance share, even if he or she is not a holder of a reserved portion. However, transferring a property to a child, a spouse or a caregiver does not, on its own, amount to moving property away from heirs.

The core of the dispute is the difference between the name of the transaction written in the land registry and the real, shared intention of the parties. Whether the sale price was actually paid, the buyer's economic capacity, the decedent's need for money or care, family relationships and the estate that was left behind are all examined together. The same signs may lead to different results in different files. For this reason, a claim should rest not only on the thought "I was not left anything," but on the legal defect of a specific transaction and on concrete evidence that shows it.

This article addresses transfers presented as sales that were in fact gifts, transfers in exchange for care, methods of proof, the parties to the action, time limits and the position of later buyers. It reviews both the Court of Cassation decisions that accept and those that reject such claims, and explains the boundaries between decedent simulation, abatement (tenkis) and equalization (denkleştirme) in inheritance.

Legal basis of decedent simulation and the conditions for its application

Why is an apparent sale concealing a gift invalid?

Article 19 of the Turkish Code of Obligations requires that, before the name of a contract, the real and shared intention of the parties be examined. In decedent simulation, the parties do want the transfer of the immovable, but in reality they present a transaction that is in substance a gift as if it were a sale. The apparent sale is not based on a real intention. A concealed gift of an immovable is invalid because it was not concluded in the formal manner required by law for such a gift. For the form of immovable transactions, Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law No. 2644 are considered together.

The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) in its unification of case law decision dated April 1, 1974, E.1974/1, K.1974/2 (İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı) recognizes a right of action for heirs whose inheritance right is infringed in this structure, whether or not they hold a reserved portion. In that case, the heir acts not merely as a person who stands in the decedent's place in the contract, but as a third person whose own inheritance right has been violated by a simulated transaction. This distinction is decisive both for the ability to bring the action alone and for the means of proof. Unification of Case Law Decision

In a claim based on decedent simulation, the transfer of a titled immovable, the apparent transaction, the concealed gift, the parties' simulated intention and the aim of harming the heir's right are assessed together. The decedent's unilateral thinking is not sufficient; there must be collusion in the transaction. Concealment of the transfer, family resentment or economic inequality do not replace the other elements.

Is every gift or unequal distribution a decedent simulation?

During their lifetime, decedents have freedom to dispose of their property. They may make a real sale, validly make a gift, or transfer property in exchange for an obligation of care. It cannot be said that they are required to make gifts to all children at the same time and in the same amount. On the other hand, the freedom of disposal does not remove the provisions on reserved portions or the invalidity of a simulated transaction.

Where a transaction is openly made as a gift in the land registry, there cannot be a gift concealed under the appearance of a sale. In that case the dispute must be built on abatement or equalization, where their conditions exist. Other grounds of invalidity, such as lack of capacity or a defect of intent, may also be examined on their own terms. Correctly identifying the legal ground also determines the evidence to be used and the time limit that applies.

Direct acquisitions in which the price was paid by the decedent

A transfer of a property registered in the decedent's name is not the same as registering a property directly in a child's name when it is bought from a third party. In the second case, the value gifted by the decedent usually consists of the purchase money. The model in which the decedent transfers his or her own titled immovable under an apparent sale, as in the 1974 decision, does not apply automatically.

In its decision of March 25, 2026, E.2026/1386, K.2026/2216, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) considered a shop bought in 1970 directly in the son's name, with the price paid by the father. Because the decedent had not transferred property that belonged to him, the rejection of the claim for cancellation of title based on decedent simulation was found appropriate. As regards abatement, the old provisions of the former Civil Code applied to the death in 1984, and the statute of limitations defense raised changed the result. The decision shows that not every gratuitous transfer can be made the subject of the same action. Full text of the decision

Transfers of money, vehicles or company shares cannot be placed under this immovable case law simply because their economic results are similar. The form specific to each type of transaction, general simulation, abatement and equalization provisions must be examined separately.

How is the decedent's real intention determined?

The whole set of facts instead of a single sign

The court tries to reconstruct the situation at the time of the transfer. The decedent's income and debts, whether there was a reasonable reason for selling the property, the decedent's relationship with the buyer, the gifts the decedent made to other heirs, and who used the property after the transfer are all included in this review. It is not accurate to treat later family disputes as conclusive proof of the purpose of the earlier transaction.

Being wealthy does not mean that the decedent could not sell. Likewise, the buyer being a close relative does not by itself prove simulation. On the other hand, where the price was not paid, the buyer lacked purchasing power, significant assets were directed to particular persons, and there are concrete accounts about relations with the excluded heir, the claim of simulation may be strengthened. Under Articles 6 of the TMK and 190 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (HMK), the burden of proving simulation lies with the claimant; the existence of indicators (emare) does not automatically reverse this basic rule.

Transfers to young grandchildren and the defense of distribution

In its decision of February 19, 2025, E.2023/1083, K.2025/71, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation examined the transfer of a number of immovables to young grandchildren under the appearance of sales. The grandchildren's lack of purchasing power, the failure to prove the care defense, the decedent's economic situation and the decedent's relations with the claimant son were considered together. The Assembly reversed the decision of resistance (direnme kararı) that had rejected the claim, on the ground that the claim should be accepted.

The decision also addressed the defense of distribution in particular: because the grandchildren were not heirs in the case at hand, the defense of a balanced distribution among heirs was not given weight. This does not mean that grandchildren can never be heirs; the status of heir is determined according to the family structure at the time of death. Furthermore, the statement that property was previously given to the claimant does not by itself prove a balanced distribution covering all heirs. Full text of the decision

Sale price, payment records and the buyer's economic capacity

Low price and the absence of a bank record

The price stated in the land registry should be compared with the real value of the property on the date of the transaction. Judging a past sale price as insufficient by reference to today's market value is misleading. The expert should examine the zoning status, the nature of the building, location, share ratio, usufruct, mortgages and similar features as they stood at that date. Comparing a transfer of bare ownership with a sale of full ownership on the same value basis is not correct.

A bank receipt can be strong evidence; however, without examining who sent the money, who received it, when, and what the explanation of the transaction was, it cannot be concluded that the sale price was paid. If the money was returned shortly afterwards, or related to a different debt, the assessment changes. The absence of a bank record does not, especially for old transactions, on its own prove a gift conclusively. The defense of payment in cash must be made concrete: from what source, where, and in whose knowledge it took place.

Non-payment of the price in a genuine sale, after the fact, does not on its own show that there was simulation from the beginning. If the parties really agreed a sale, the problem may be a breach of the payment obligation. For this reason, "no payment" and "no intention to sell" must be kept apart.

A genuine sale to pay debts: an example of rejection

In its decision of November 26, 2025, E.2024/800, K.2025/753, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation examined a sale by a father to his daughter. The decedent's suretyship debts, sales to other persons, the buyer's economic capacity and the concrete accounts of other heirs supported the defense. Despite the low land registry price and the dispute about payment, the Assembly accepted that the claim that property had been moved away from heirs had not been proven.

The Assembly reversed the decision of resistance that had accepted the claim, on the ground that the claim should be rejected. This example shows that the burden of proof cannot be shifted simply by the approach that "the buyer did not prove the payment." The buyer's employment or use of credit does not on its own prove that the price was paid, but evidence confirming the decedent's debts and the real reason for the sale cannot be disregarded either. Full text of the decision

How should witnesses and other evidence be prepared?

An heir who raises decedent simulation is in the position of a third party to the transaction, so he or she may prove the claim by any lawful means of evidence, including witnesses. The fact that the official deed states that the price was received does not categorically prevent this heir from explaining the simulation through a witness. However, a witness who expresses a general opinion does not have the same probative force as a witness who directly knows the events.

Instead of a witness saying "he looked after his father," the witness should be asked in which period, how often, and what tasks were performed; instead of "no money was given," the witness should be asked whether he or she took part in the payment discussion. The witness's closeness to the parties, the source of the account, consistency of dates, and agreement with other evidence are assessed. Kinship does not make a witness worthless as such; but the possibility of being affected by a family conflict or by the outcome of the case must not be concealed.

Under Article 194 of the HMK, the facts must be made concrete and it must be shown which fact each piece of evidence proves. From the land registry office, not only the current record but also the official deeds and the entire chain of transfers should be requested. Bank, hospital and institutional records should be obtained by lawful means and, where necessary, through the court. Unauthorized access to another person's account or obtaining unlawful records is not an appropriate method of preparing evidence.

Transfer in exchange for care and the contract of maintenance until death

The nature of a genuine care contract

Under Article 611 of the TBK, in a contract of maintenance until death one party undertakes to provide care and supervision and the other party undertakes to transfer property. As a rule, the contract must be made in the form of a contract of inheritance under Article 612 of the TBK. A separate exception to the written-form requirement is provided for care institutions recognized by the State. Article 614 of the TBK links the scope of care to the value of the property transferred and the previous social situation of the creditor of care.

It is not mandatory that the person be bedridden or seriously ill on the date of the contract. Future care needs may also be secured. The death occurring shortly after the contract does not, on its own, create invalidity. Because the contract assumes the undertaking of life-long care for an indefinite period, a simple daily-wage calculation based on the duration of care actually given later cannot be used to conclude that there was simulation.

On the other hand, the use of the word "care" does not place the transaction outside review. Where the real purpose is a gift and moving property away from heirs, the apparent care contract is also subject to simulation review. The decedent's age, health, family relations, the actual performance of the care, other assets and the proportion of the transfer to the whole are considered together. These principles were also explained in the Civil General Assembly's decision of December 10, 2025, E.2024/563, K.2025/808. Full text of the decision

Rejection because of genuine care and a reasonable transfer

In its decision of February 26, 2026, E.2025/4214, K.2026/1494, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the decedent, who was 85 years old on the date of the contract, was in fact cared for by a niece and by a spouse. Taking into account the health condition, witness accounts and other assets, the Chamber accepted that the transfer remained within reasonable limits. Because simulation could not be proven, the rejection decision was upheld.

In the case at hand, since a genuine and onerous care contract was accepted, the alternative claim for abatement was also rejected. This result cannot be generalized to mean that abatement can never be requested against care contracts. Article 615 of the TBK preserves the heirs' abatement rights; where there is a part containing a gift or a gratuitous benefit, its own conditions are separately examined. Full text of the decision

Acceptance despite care having been provided

In its decision of April 20, 2026, E.2025/3607, K.2026/3180, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation accepted that the defendant had provided care to a certain degree. Nevertheless, the fact that the decedent largely continued to live independently, the scope of the transfer and the clear disproportion between the transfer and the care obligation were considered together. The finding that the real purpose was a gift and moving property away from heirs was upheld.

Accordingly, although the existence of care is important, it is not on its own a sufficient defense. Likewise, the fact that a person can still carry out daily tasks is not, on its own, proof of simulation. Why the transfer was made to this extent, whether there were other gifts, and the common purpose at the date of the transaction must be explained. Full text of the decision

Sense of gratitude, the care defense and the debate in legal scholarship

In some transfers that appear as sales, the buyer argues that, instead of paying money, he or she provided long-term care and effort. In Court of Cassation practice, this defense is assessed according to the specific features of the case. However, a sense of gratitude is not an independent reason that makes every gratuitous transaction valid. The reality and scope of the care, and the aim of moving property away from heirs, must be examined separately.

In its decision of September 17, 2026, E.2026/1371, K.2026/6198, the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, despite the care-for-transfer defense, examined the decedent's relations with the children, the accounts given by witnesses, the scope of the care and additional gifts, and upheld the decision on cancellation and re-registration of title. The short period of care in that decision cannot be detached from all other facts and turned into a general limit of validity. Full text of the decision

In legal scholarship there is criticism of this approach from the standpoint of contract law. Aziz Erman Bayram, in a 2025 study, argues within the framework of Article 207 of the TBK that the sale price must be money, and criticizes the reasoning that treats care and effort as a sale price. This is an academic view on legal characterization, not a provision that removes the existence of the decisions in practice. For this reason, past care rewarded out of gratitude, a commitment to future care and an actual sale for money must be explained separately. Bayram, TBB Dergisi, 2025, issue 181, pp. 209–270

A later breach of the care obligation is also different from simulation at the outset. Whose rights to terminate and to rely on breach of contract are, whether the care creditor exercised them during life, and which claims may pass to the heirs must be examined separately. An heir does not, by merely asserting "the care was insufficient," thereby prove all the conditions of decedent simulation.

Who may bring a decedent simulation action and against whom is it brought?

The heir bringing an action for his or her own share

An heir whose inheritance right has been infringed may bring an action for his or her own inheritance share, even if he or she does not hold a reserved portion. For this, it is not necessary for all other heirs to be claimants or to give permission. The status and share ratio must be shown by the certificate of inheritance, the death record and, where necessary, the family registration records. If there is a dispute about the certificate of inheritance, that problem must also be resolved.

Since the decedent is still alive, and the inheritance has not yet opened, this special action cannot be brought merely on the basis of a mere expectation of becoming an heir in the future. Where there are other grounds, such as lack of capacity or abuse of a representative's authority, their right of action and representation requirements differ. Renunciation of the inheritance, waiver of the inheritance or disinheritance may also affect the standing to sue; a definitive assessment cannot be made without examining the scope and validity of the relevant act.

Where the claim relates only to the claimant's share, the judgment does not automatically make all heirs owners. If the return of the entire property to the estate is requested, the participation of the parties and the representation of the estate are assessed separately. For example, if the decedent transferred half of the property and the claimant's inheritance share is one third, the contested right is, as a rule, one sixth of the whole property. The amount in dispute and the judgment must be framed in line with this scope.

Correctly identifying the defendants

A claim for cancellation and registration of title is, as a rule, directed against the current registered owner. Where the immovable has passed to several persons or to independent units, the entries and owners within the scope of the requested cancellation must be identified. Suing only the first buyer is not enough to obtain the registration result when the title is now in another person's name.

Where there is a claim for price or compensation against the first acquirer, that person's liability must be explained separately. If that person has died, his or her heirs and the joinder of parties are examined. The land registry office, being only the institution that carries out the registration, does not thereby become the correct defendant in this private-law action.

Statute of limitations, preclusive period and older transactions

A request to correct the land registry record based on decedent simulation is, under settled practice, as a rule not subject to a statute of limitations or to a general preclusive period. An invalid transaction does not become valid merely because time has passed. However, the conclusion that "every claim is time-barred" is wrong. The provisions specific to cadastral surveys, abatement, monetary claims and temporary legal protection are subject to different time-limit regimes.

The relationship between the date of death and the date of cadastral determination

Article 12(3) of the Cadastre Law No. 3402 limits reliance on legal grounds predating the cadastre once ten years have passed from the finalization of the minutes. In decedent simulation, the date of death, the date of cadastral determination and the date of finalization must be examined together, because the heir's right arises by death. The decedent dying before the cadastre and dying after it do not produce the same result.

In its decision of June 26, 2018, E.2016/7827, K.2018/4331, the 16th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that, in a case where the decedent died after the determination, the right of action also arose later, and therefore the ten-year cadastral period does not apply. The decision also shows that consent (muvafakat) recorded in the minutes during the cadastral survey and a sale previously made in the land registry should not be confused. Accordingly, before the time-limit debate, it must be determined by which document, when and how the transaction was made. Full text of the decision

Abatement and transitional law

Under Article 571 of the TMK, the right to bring an abatement action expires one year after the learning that the reserved portion has been infringed, and in any case ten years after the date of opening of the will for wills or, for other dispositions, after the opening of the inheritance. The special starting-point rule set out in the law, and the right to raise the abatement defense at any time, are reserved. The learning of the transfer alone is not the same date as the learning of the infringement of the reserved portion in every case. The right of action of creditors in cases of infringement of the reserved portion is examined separately in the article on the abatement action of the heir's creditors.

These periods must not be applied directly to old deaths. Article 17 of Law No. 4722 binds heirship and the passing of the inheritance to the law in force on the date of death. Law No. 6101 also contains transitional provisions for old debt relationships. Indeed, the decision of March 25, 2026, E.2026/1386, K.2026/2216 accepted that the abatement limitation provisions of the former law applied to an inheritance opened in 1984. Applying the current provision of the law mechanically to all historical events may lead to a loss of rights.

Differences between decedent simulation, abatement and equalization

Which legal route solves which problem?

In decedent simulation, the aim is to correct the land registry entry that results from an invalid transaction. In abatement, as a rule, the effect of a valid gift that exceeds the reserved portion is reduced. Equalization in inheritance, on the other hand, ensures that certain gratuitous benefits made between statutory heirs, on account of an inheritance share, are included in the distribution calculation. Abatement is not an old or secondary system; it is an independent protection with different conditions.

Article 565 of the TMK does not subject all lifetime gifts to abatement without limit; the categories set out in the law are examined. Unusual gifts made within one year before death are one of these. In addition, a different assessment applies to benefits where the clear purpose is to render the reserved-portion rules ineffective. For this reason, the idea that "nothing can be done about a gift older than one year" is also wrong.

Equalization is not the same as the distribution defense in a lawsuit

Article 669 of the TMK regulates the obligation to return gratuitous lifetime benefits received by statutory heirs on account of their inheritance shares. Benefits to a descendant such as start-up capital, transfer of assets or release from debt are subject to equalization unless the decedent expressly states otherwise. There are special provisions for customary gifts and educational expenses. Not every family assistance can be claimed back in full.

The heir obliged to equalize may, under Article 671 of the TMK, choose either to return the thing in kind or to have its value set off against his or her share; Article 673 is important for valuation. Benefits exceeding the inheritance share and abatement rights are also taken into account separately. For this reason, an equalization claim does not have the same result and calculation method as an action that seeks only the cancellation of the title.

The defense raised in a decedent simulation action that "the decedent made a balanced distribution during life" is aimed, first, at showing that there was no purpose of moving property away from heirs. It is not the same thing as the technical equalization obligation. To make the defense concrete, the benefits made to all heirs, their dates and values must be set out.

How should alternative claims be framed?

Under Article 111 of the HMK, where the conditions exist, cancellation and registration of title may first be requested, and, if that is not accepted, abatement. However, for abatement, the reserved portion, the time limit, the gift subject to abatement and the calculation elements must also be explained. Rejection of the first claim does not automatically secure acceptance of the second.

The same property cannot be obtained twice, through a claim for its full price together with the title to the same share. The order of the claims, against which defendant each is directed, and in which circumstance a claim for money is pursued must be clear. The court applying the law on its own initiative does not mean that it creates facts that were not alleged or grants every result that was not requested.

Later buyers and the impossibility of recovering the property

Acquisition by a third party acting in good faith

Article 1023 of the TMK protects a third party who has acquired a real right in good faith on the basis of the land registry entry. The party to the original simulated transaction cannot benefit from this protection by relying on his or her own simulated transaction. However, as regards a person who later acquires the property, it is examined whether that person knew or ought to have known of the irregularity of the earlier entry. Article 1024 of the TMK prevents the protection of a person who knew or ought to have known.

Kinship, rapid transfers, a clear deviation from market value, the reality of the price, who used the property, and whether the buyer knew of the family dispute are all significant together. Kinship alone should not be used as an automatic presumption of bad faith. Good faith is examined by reference to the situation at the time of acquisition, and the claim of bad faith must be made concrete.

Where the later buyer's acquisition is protected, the fact that the first transaction was simulated does not necessarily lead to the property being recovered. Where mortgages or other real rights have been created, their holders and their good faith must also be separately assessed. Focusing only on the first sale without seeing the entire chain of transfers is insufficient.

Sale during the action and Article 125 of the HMK

Bringing an action does not by itself prevent the transfer of the property. If the defendant later transfers the subject matter of the action to a third party, then under Article 125 of the HMK the claimant may choose either to continue the action against the transferee or to convert the claim into a claim for damages against the transferor. The ability to use these options does not mean that each of them will succeed on the substantive law.

In its decision of November 12, 2025, E.2024/588, K.2025/718, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation addressed this problem in a case where the property was sold by compulsory enforcement while the file was under appellate review. The Assembly stated that, because of the change of ownership, action should be taken under Article 125 of the HMK, and reversed the decision of resistance. This decision should not be presented as an acceptance or rejection of the merits of the simulation; the determinative consequence concerns the transfer during the action and the procedural rights of choice. Full text of the decision

Limits of claims for price and compensation

Article 1025 of the TMK reserves claims for compensation alongside the gains of good-faith third parties. However, there is no rule that "if the property cannot be recovered, the price is automatically paid." It must be explained against whom and on which legal ground the claim is brought, the conditions of liability, the loss or the value obtained, the share in the inheritance, the valuation date and the starting point of interest.

Transfers made before the action must be kept distinct from transfers that occurred during the action. The procedural option under Article 125 of the HMK does not apply automatically to all earlier transfers. Claims for money based on tort, unjust enrichment or another relevant legal ground are examined under their own provisions for time limits. The fact that the claim for the property itself is not subject to a time limit does not mean that the claim for money is also unlimited in time.

Where the property is replaced by independent units, where there is a zoning implementation, expropriation, or where shares are divided, the claim must also be adapted to the current entry and legal consequence. An entry order that cannot be enforced because it relies on an old parcel number must be avoided.

Interim injunction, jurisdiction, competence and litigation costs

Interim injunction to prevent transfer of title

Under Article 389 et seq. of the HMK, where a transfer that would make the right harder to obtain or a serious risk of harm exists, a measure may be requested to prevent the immovable from being transferred to third persons. The application must clearly show the immovable and the reason for the risk; the plausibility of the claim must be shown in an approximate manner. Instead of an abstract statement that the property "can be sold," the existing sale attempt, successive transfers or the particular features of the dispute should be set out.

The measure is not a final ownership decision. Proportionality, the interests of the opposing party and, where necessary, security are taken into account. Under the conditions of Article 392 of the HMK, a measure without security is also possible; however, it cannot be said that every heir is automatically exempt from security. Because an annotation of pending litigation and a measure that restrains disposal may not have the same effect, the scope of the application and of the decision notified to the land registry must be checked.

The measure must be requested within one week from the pronouncement or service of the decision on the requesting party. In a pre-action measure, the main action must be brought within two weeks from the date on which enforcement of the measure was requested, and proof that the action has been filed must be submitted to the file in the manner provided by law. If these periods are missed, the measure may lapse automatically. The general time-limit regime of the main action does not remove these short procedural time limits.

Competent court, exclusive jurisdiction and mediation

In an ordinary action for cancellation and registration of title based on decedent simulation, the competent court is the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). Under Article 12 of the HMK, the court of the place where the immovable is located has exclusive jurisdiction. Where there are several immovables, the special possibility in the same article is examined. Special situations such as cadastral proceedings must be assessed separately.

This action is not subject to mandatory mediation as a condition precedent merely because it concerns an inheritance or an immovable. It should not be confused with the disputes over sharing of immovables and partition covered by Article 18/B of Law No. 6325. For disputes on the transfer of immovables and limited real rights, the possibility of voluntary mediation and the special procedure under Article 17/B on enforceability of the agreement are taken into account.

Fees, expert and the risk of losing

The value of the action must be consistent with the value of the disputed share claimed. Proportional fees, on-site examination, expert costs, service and, where necessary, security for the interim measure are considered at the outset. If the value determined during the proceedings differs, the completion of fees may arise. Depending on the outcome of the case, there is a risk of litigation costs and an award of the opposing party's attorney fees; giving a fixed total cost or a promise of a definitive result is not correct.

In its decision of June 26, 2018, E.2016/7827, K.2018/4331, where the dispute was limited to the claimant's share of half of the decedent's property, the Court of Cassation also found it wrong to calculate the attorney fee on the value of the whole immovable. For this reason, the share calculation matters not only for registration but also for financial consequences.

How should the file be prepared before the action?

The first task is to place the events in chronological order: the acquisition of the immovable, the disputed transfer, subsequent sales, the period of care, death, cadastral proceedings and the dates of learning must be shown separately. Then, against each claim, the supporting evidence and the strong counter-explanation must be written. In this way, not only the claimant's account but also a defense of real sale, care or balanced distribution is tested.

• The certificate of inheritance, the death record and the share calculation must be prepared.
• The current land registry record, earlier transfers, official deeds and encumbrances must be examined together.
• The income, debts, payment and health records at the date of transfer must be identified.
• Witnesses' direct knowledge, periods and relations with the parties must be separated.
• Gifts made to other heirs and the assets left behind must be investigated.
• The main, alternative and monetary claims must be framed separately as to parties, time limits and evidence.
• Where there is a risk of transfer, the request for a measure and the timetable of its implementation must not be delayed.

The fact that documents are not yet in hand does not require that the petition leave all details vague. It can be explained which record is held by which institution and for which fact it is requested. However, a payment document that is not in hand must not be described as if it existed, and a witness must not be taught the facts. The strength of the file comes from the consistency of lawful evidence that corroborates itself.

For details, see our article on the recovery of a gifted immovable and cancellation of title.

Conclusion

The outcome of a decedent simulation action cannot be tied solely to the sale being written in the land registry or to inequality among heirs. The decisive question is whether, behind the apparent transaction, there is a concealed gift with the aim of harming the heir's inheritance right, and a shared simulation. The reality of the sale, the scope of the care, the economic situation of the parties and all the benefits must be examined together.

Court of Cassation decisions show that where concrete debt and payment relationships exist, the claim may be rejected, while transfers to persons without purchasing power that cannot be explained, or benefits exceeding the care defense, may contribute to a decision in favor of the claimant. No single indicator is a formula for the outcome of every file.

The correct litigation strategy separates decedent simulation from abatement and equalization, takes account of transitional law for past events, investigates the position of later buyers, and grounds the land registry claim and the monetary claim separately. Effective protection consists not only of bringing an action, but of the right party, the right claim, timely measures and the integrity of concrete evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

If a father or mother transfers a house to one child, can the other children have it cancelled?

It depends on the circumstances of the transfer. A transfer made in exchange for a genuine sale or genuine care may be valid. If it is proven that a concealed gift made under the appearance of a sale, with the aim of infringing the inheritance right, cancellation of title based on decedent simulation may be sought. Where the gift is open, abatement and equalization are examined separately.

Can an heir who does not hold a reserved portion bring an action?

Yes. In decedent simulation, it is sufficient that the inheritance right has been infringed; holding a reserved portion is not required. Abatement is based on protection of the reserved portion. The parties and conditions of the two routes must not be confused.

Can a decedent simulation action be brought while the decedent is alive?

Since the inheritance has not yet opened, this action cannot be brought merely on the expectation of becoming an heir in the future. If there is incapacity or another legal ground, the action and representation requirements relating to it are examined separately.

Can I bring an action for my own share without the other siblings joining?

You may bring an action alone for your own inheritance share, based on decedent simulation. If it is sought to return the entire property to the estate, the participation of the parties and the representation of the estate are examined separately.

Is a low sale price in the land registry sufficient?

No. The real value on the date of transfer, the actual payment, the buyer's economic capacity, the reason for the sale and the relations between the parties are examined together. Factors affecting value, such as a usufruct or a mortgage, are also taken into account.

If there is no bank receipt for the payment, is the action necessarily won?

No. Especially for old transactions, other evidence of payment and the real reason for the sale are examined. However, a payment defense that cannot be explained, lack of purchasing power and other indicators may gain importance when combined.

Does a contract of maintenance until death prevent cancellation of title?

It does not prevent it automatically. A genuine care relationship and a reasonable transfer may strengthen the defense. If it is proven that under the appearance of care there was a gift and an aim of moving property away from heirs, cancellation is possible. Serious illness on the date of the contract is not required.

Can an action be brought after twenty years have passed?

A real claim based on decedent simulation is, as a rule, not subject to a time limit. However, the cadastral provisions, the protection of third persons, and the time limits for abatement and monetary claims are examined separately. The loss of evidence over time may also make proof more difficult.

What happens if the decedent paid the money and the title was taken directly in my sibling's name?

This situation differs from the decedent transferring his or her own titled immovable under an apparent sale. The unification of case law decision of 1974 does not apply automatically. The conditions for abatement and equalization are examined according to the nature of the benefit.

If the property has been sold to another person, does the action end?

No. The good faith of the later buyer, the date of the transfer and the scope of the claim are examined. During the action, the elective rights under Article 125 of the HMK come into play. Where a protected good-faith acquisition exists, money claims may be assessed under suitable conditions.

If cancellation of title is rejected, does the court automatically decide on abatement?

It does not do so in every case. An abatement claim must be properly raised, with the facts supporting it, the reserved portion and the time-limit conditions. Bringing an alternative action does not remove the need to prove the second claim.

Does bringing the action prevent the property from being sold again?

Not by itself. An appropriate interim injunction against the risk of transfer should be requested, and if it is granted, its implementation time limits must be observed. The interim measure and the outcome of the main action are different things.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, in particular Articles 6, 560, 565, 571, 599, 640, 669–675, 706, 1023–1025.
• Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Articles 19, 49, 72, 77, 82, 207, 237, 611–617.
• Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Articles 2, 12, 26, 33, 111, 125, 189–194, 323, 326, 389–397.
• Land Registry Law No. 2644, Article 26; Cadastre Law No. 3402, Articles 12 and 13.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Articles 17/B and 18/B.
• Law No. 4722 on the Implementation and Application of the Turkish Civil Code, Article 17; Law No. 6101 on the Implementation and Application of the Turkish Code of Obligations, Article 1 and the related transitional provisions.

Court of Cassation decisions

• Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, April 1, 1974, E.1974/1, K.1974/2: apparent sale, concealed gift and the heir's right of action.
• Civil General Assembly, February 19, 2025, E.2023/1083, K.2025/71, assessment paragraphs 19–26: transfer to young grandchildren and the defense of distribution.
• Civil General Assembly, November 26, 2025, E.2024/800, K.2025/753, assessment paragraphs 20–24: genuine reason for sale, debts and burden of proof.
• Civil General Assembly, December 10, 2025, E.2024/563, K.2025/808, paragraphs 31–42: nature of the care contract, real purpose and proportion of the transfer.
• 1st Civil Chamber, February 26, 2026, E.2025/4214, K.2026/1494: affirmance of the rejection decision on the basis of genuine care.
• 1st Civil Chamber, April 20, 2026, E.2025/3607, K.2026/3180: affirmance of the acceptance decision despite the care defense.
• 1st Civil Chamber, September 17, 2026, E.2026/1371, K.2026/6198: joint assessment of care, gratitude and the purpose of moving property away from heirs.
• 1st Civil Chamber, March 25, 2026, E.2026/1386, K.2026/2216: direct acquisition in the child's name and the time limit under the former law for abatement.
• 16th Civil Chamber, June 26, 2018, E.2016/7827, K.2018/4331: death after cadastre, consent and the value of the claim.
• Civil General Assembly, November 12, 2025, E.2024/588, K.2025/718, paragraphs 15–31: transfer during the action and Article 125 of the HMK.

Academic source

• Aziz Erman Bayram, “On the Necessity of Money as the Price in a Sale Contract: A Critical Look at the Court of Cassation's Approach in Decedent Simulation Cases” (Satış Sözleşmesinde Bedelin Para Olması Zorunluluğu Üzerine: Yargıtay'ın Muris Muvazaası Davalarındaki Yaklaşımına Eleştirel Bir Bakış), Journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, 2025, issue 181, pp. 209–270; in particular pp. 209–212.