A fiduciary transfer (inançlı işlem) may come into question where a property has really been transferred, but it has been agreed that it will be returned when a specific purpose ends or a condition is met. A claim that rests only on the statement "I entrusted the title deed" is not enough. The claim must explain which agreement the duty to re-transfer is based on, when that duty arose, how it will be proven and against whom it should be directed. [1, 2, 3]
In a fiduciary transfer, the transfer of ownership and the duty to return are considered together. The trustor (inanan kişi) transfers a right for a particular purpose; the trustee (inanılan kişi) must use that right in line with the agreement and return it under the agreed conditions. This structure must be distinguished both from a simulation (muvazaa) in which no transfer was wanted from the outset and from an ordinary sale of property that was not concluded in the required form.
In Which Property Disputes Does a Fiduciary Transfer Arise?
Transfer for Security
A transfer of property to secure a debt, with an agreement that it will be returned once the debt is paid, is one example. However, not every below-value sale or every transfer made by a debtor is automatically a fiduciary transfer. The parties' re-transfer agreement and the debt to which it is tied must be identified.
A transfer of property may also have been agreed as actual performance of a debt. In that case, saying "there was a transaction related to the debt" does not prove an obligation to return. A definitive transfer must be separated from a temporary transfer for security, based on the contract and the payment records. The explanations in the article on registration of title based on a right of repurchase may be used for comparison.
Registration in Another Person's Name and the Claim of Trust
When the price of a property was paid by one person but the property was registered in another person's name, this may raise a fiduciary relationship if there is also an agreement to return it. However, paying the price does not by itself make someone the owner of the title or guarantee that they will receive the property back. The payment may rest on a gift, a loan, a partnership contribution or another relationship.
For this reason, alongside the question of who financed the purchase, it is examined why the title was issued in another person's name and under what conditions it was agreed to be transferred back. Whether the transaction served an unlawful purpose may also be assessed separately; a fiduciary characterization does not automatically validate every purpose. [1] For details, the article on unauthorised or irregular transfer of company property may also be read.
How Are Fiduciary Transfer, Simulation and Promise of Sale Distinguished?
| Relationship | Core intent | Main dispute |
|---|---|---|
| Fiduciary transfer | Actual transfer of the right and a conditional duty to return it | Re-transfer agreement, condition and proof |
| Simulation (muvazaa) | The result stated in the apparent transaction is not in fact intended | True common intent and invalidity of the apparent transaction |
| Promise of sale | Duty to conclude a sale in the future | Valid form of the promise, conditions of performance and annotation (şerh) |
| Sale outside the land registry (haricî satış) | Sale agreement made outside the land registry | Formal requirements and any special legal consequences |
Terms such as "action for cancellation of title" can be used in all of these disputes, but their factual bases are not the same. In a fiduciary transfer, the registration at the outset cannot be called unlawful merely because it rests on a relationship of trust. The problem is usually that the duty to return, assumed after a valid transfer, has not been performed.
For more on this subject, see the article on property purchased outside the formal process and its title registration.
A written evidence approach to a trust document does not mean that the transfer of title requires no formal procedure. Establishing the registration itself and proving the duty to return are different matters. Where registration is sought on the basis of a court judgment, Article 716 of Law No. 4721 Turkish Civil Code (TMK) is also considered. [2]
Why Is Written Evidence Decisive?
In the Court of Cassation's practice on fiduciary transfers, the unifying decision of February 5, 1947 (E.1945/20, K.1947/6) is one of the principal points of reference. This principle is applied in the 2024 decisions set out below. The written proof of a trust relationship and the supplementary means of proof available where there is an initial written evidence (delil başlangıcı) must be kept distinct. [3, 4, 5]
What Should a Trust Document Contain?
The clear details of the property, the parties, the purpose of the transfer, the condition for return, the amount of any debt, the payment schedule and the timing of the re-transfer should all be understandable. A vague note such as "I received it in trust" can create significant dispute if it does not identify which property it concerns. The signatures and the original of the document are also important.
It should not be generalised that every trust document must be drawn up before a notary. However, the type of the document, its signature, its content and the nature of the legal relationship all affect its probative value. The existence of a notarial act does not by itself mean that the document sets out the conditions of re-transfer.
Does a Close Family Relationship Replace Written Evidence?
Trust within a family does not remove the need for legal proof. The rules on proof by document (Articles 200–203 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (HMK)), on counter-proof against a document and on exceptions, must be considered together, depending on the nature of the dispute. An approach such as "we are siblings, so no document is needed" or "we are relatives, so a witness is always enough" is not safe. [6]
It is particularly important how the apparent official transaction is reconciled with the claimed duty to return. The presence of witnesses does not justify skipping the review of written documents or initial written evidence. The concrete file must show which exception to the proof rules applies, and why.
Do WhatsApp Messages and E-mails Prove a Fiduciary Transfer?
Electronic data may constitute a document within the meaning of HMK Article 199. However, not every document proves a matter conclusively on its own. Initial written evidence under HMK Article 202 is a document that, although it does not fully prove the alleged legal transaction, makes it probable, and that originates from the opposing party or its representative. Where these conditions are met, supplementary proof by witness testimony may be possible. [6]
2024/5689: Messages and Witnesses Together Were Found Sufficient
In its decision of December 12, 2024 (E.2024/195, K.2024/5689), the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) accepted the opposing party's positive reply to correspondence seeking the return of the title as initial written evidence. The fiduciary relationship was considered proven together with witness testimony explaining who paid the price of the property and how the registration was arranged, and the rejection was quashed. [3]
This decision does not mean that any WhatsApp screenshot is enough to recover title. The sender, the recipient, the link to the property, the whole conversation and the opposing party's acceptance all matter. The file should present not a single sentence but context that shows its meaning.
2024/3183: Vague Correspondence Did Not Produce the Same Result
In its decision of June 4, 2024 (E.2023/4141, K.2024/3183), the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation discussed the fact that the correspondence could not be clearly tied to the property, an unsigned protocol and other evidence; the rejection was upheld. On the oath as well, the court stressed that the defendants were not parties to the trust relationship and that an oath must concern facts relating to the person who takes it. [4]
Read together, the two decisions show that the name of the tool does not determine the outcome. Instead of saying "there is WhatsApp", it must be explained why that message makes the duty to re-transfer probable. Sentences that concern another property, another debt or an unconcluded settlement discussion do not carry the same weight.
Integrity of the Electronic Record
The telephone number and the attribution of the account, the chronological order and the complete conversation must be preserved. Cut or altered images may weaken the proof. Access to someone else's account without permission must be avoided; records lawfully obtained must be submitted in the proper manner. Technical examination and access to the original of the document may be requested where necessary.
What Can Be Done If the Original of the Protocol Is With the Opposing Party?
A claim that the original of a document is in the opposing party's hands is assessed within the framework of the rules on document production. The document must be identified, and it must be explained who holds it and why there is reason to believe so. The court's order to produce the document, the duty to explain, and the consequences of refusing to produce it are examined under HMK Articles 219–220; neither automatic acceptance nor automatic rejection is assumed. [6]
In its decision of November 11, 2024 (E.2024/4867, K.2024/6128), the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) asked for an investigation into whether the originals of the protocols relied on by the parties were held by the defendant. Other lawsuits arising from the same document and the status of electronic records as initial evidence were also made the subject of assessment; the decision was quashed for incomplete examination. [5]
In this example, the existence of a copy of the protocol did not amount to a definitive win of the case. The original of the document, its attribution, its relation to other files and supplementary evidence must be investigated. The conclusion that "the original is not with me, so proof is no longer possible" may also be premature.
When Does the Duty to Return Arise?
The obligation may be tied to a specific date, to the payment of a debt, to the realisation of a purpose or to another event. Until that condition is met, a claim for re-transfer may be premature. Where the agreement appears to be open-ended, the end of the relationship, the right to demand return and the way in which the claim became due must be assessed separately.
Performance of the Trustor's Own Obligation
Where the property was transferred as security for a debt, whether the debt has been paid matters. Under Article 97 of Law No. 6098 Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), in a reciprocal contract the condition to perform one's own obligation, or to offer to perform it, may arise. Whether the court will order a measure such as deposit is assessed together with the existence and amount of the debt. [1]
It is not enough for a person to say that they have paid; it must show which debt has been discharged. If the transferee raises other claims, their relationship to the conditional re-transfer is explained. A debt that in fact does not exist, or that has already been paid, should not be accepted as an unclear ground for blocking the re-transfer.
When Does the Limitation Period Start in a Fiduciary Transfer?
For a personal claim to re-transfer arising from a trust relationship, the general ten-year limitation period is applied in practice. Under TBK Articles 146 and 149, the starting point is the maturity (muacceliyet) of the claim. For this reason, the date of the first transfer of the title is not automatically taken as the starting point in every case. The return condition, the date of the demand and the conduct of the debtor are examined together. [1]
For example, if it was agreed that re-transfer would take place once the debt has been fully paid, the relationship must be linked to the date of payment. On the other hand, if return was demanded long ago and expressly refused, the fact that the parties are still negotiating may not mean that the period never began. Saying in every file that "the trust relationship continues" does not remove the review of maturity and limitation.
A notarial demand letter (ihtar) may be significant for evidence and default, but not every demand letter interrupts limitation. The grounds for interruption under TBK Article 154 are also taken into account. Filing a lawsuit, acknowledgement of the claim, and ordinary reminder correspondence based on other legal grounds must be distinguished. [1]
How Are the Correct Defendant and the Claim Determined?
The person who owes the re-transfer and the current registered owner may not be the same person. Where the property has been sold to another person, the effect of the personal trust relationship on the third party and the third party's knowledge are examined separately. The good or bad faith of the subsequent buyer, the legal nature of the first registration and the result sought must be explained; a claim to annul all sales should not be filed without such explanation. TMK Articles 1023–1024 are considered in matters of reliance on a register where its conditions are met. [2]
If the title cannot be recovered, a claim for the price or for damages arising from breach of the obligation may come into question. However, requiring the current owner to assume all debts under a personal trust agreement, or requiring the former debtor to transfer a title that he or she no longer owns, raises the same level of problem. The defendant for each claim must be determined separately.
The Significance of the 2026 Partial Amendment Decision
In its decision of May 8, 2026 (E.2021/8, K.2026/1), the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) held that a new claim which was not requested at the outset cannot be added to the case by partial amendment (kısmi ıslah). The initial petition should not be left incomplete on the assumption that a monetary claim may be added to a title claim later. The decision does not mean that all amendment routes are abolished, or that HMK Article 125 on the case during proceedings no longer applies. [7]
In an ordinary title dispute, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) is the court with exclusive territorial jurisdiction where the property is located; provisional measures, if necessary, and valid representation of the parties are also considered. Whether the underlying relationship is commercial or otherwise of a special private nature must be examined separately for subject-matter jurisdiction and conditions of the claim. Court fees, site inspection and expert costs are planned according to the value of the claim. For the decision to be applied in the land registry, finality is required where the decision concerns a right in rem. [6]
For related topics, see our articles on simulated transfer of immovable property (muvazaalı taşınmaz devri), cancellation of title due to abuse of a power of attorney and recovery of a property donated, as well as our page on actions for cancellation and re-registration of title.
Conclusion
A strong file in a fiduciary transfer sets out, together, the agreement for return, the maturity of the debt and the appropriate means of proof. Paying the price, a close family relationship or a single message does not by itself resolve every dispute. Written documents, initial written evidence originating from the opposing party, supplementary witnesses and payment records must be linked to one another. Directing the title claim and any alternative monetary claim at the right persons from the outset reduces procedural problems that later become difficult to remedy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it enough to say I entrusted the title deed?
No. The content of the agreement for return, its connection with the property and suitable evidence must be shown.
Must a trust agreement always be made before a notary?
The requirement of written proof and the requirement of a notarial act are not the same. The content and signature of the document and the nature of the relationship are assessed separately; the formal transfer of title is a different matter.
Is a WhatsApp message enough to recover the title?
Depending on its circumstances, it may constitute initial written evidence and can be supplemented by witnesses. No single message is considered sufficient on its own.
Does a bank receipt prove a fiduciary transfer?
It may show the payment. Why that payment led to a registration in another person's name and to a duty to return must be proven separately.
What can be done if the original of the contract is with the defendant?
The document may be specified and its production requested under HMK Articles 219–220. The consequence of a failure to produce it is assessed by the court under the statutory conditions.
Does the limitation period always start from the transfer of title?
No. For a personal claim to re-transfer, the maturity of the claim, the conditions of the agreement and the time from which the duty to return could be demanded are what matter.
Can I recover the title I gave as security without paying the debt?
The content of the agreement and the mutual performances are examined. If the re-transfer is conditional on payment of the debt, you may need to perform your own obligation or offer to do so in the appropriate manner.
If the property is sold to someone else, is only money claimed?
There is no single outcome in every case. The position of the subsequent buyer, their knowledge and the legal basis of the title claim are assessed, as is the monetary liability of the original debtor.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 6098 Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), particularly Articles 19, 26–27, 97, 112, 146, 149 and 154.
2 — Law No. 4721 Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), particularly Articles 706, 716 and 1023–1025.
3 — Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), December 12, 2024, E.2024/195, K.2024/5689, full text of the decision; electronic records and initial written evidence.
4 — Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), June 4, 2024, E.2023/4141, K.2024/3183, text of the decision; sufficiency of evidence and oath. The 1947 principle on unification of case law referred to in the text is also applied through this decision.
5 — Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi), November 11, 2024, E.2024/4867, K.2024/6128, full text of the decision; original of the protocol and HMK Articles 219–220.
6 — Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), particularly Articles 2, 12, 111, 125, 190, 199–203, 219–220, 225, 367 and 389–397.
7 — Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihatları Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), May 8, 2026, E.2021/8, K.2026/1, Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) June 30, 2026, No. 33296; published copy of the decision on the Union of Turkish Bar Associations website.