Action for Recovery Based on Inheritance Rights: Recovery of Estate Assets, Time Limits and Proof

An action for recovery based on inheritance rights is the action by which a statutory or appointed heir, relying on a superior inheritance right, can require the return of the estate or estate assets from the person holding them. It is regulated in Articles 637–639 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). However, the fact that an inherited house, bank funds or an item of property are held by someone else does not by itself turn the dispute into this type of action. First it must be determined whether the issue is the right to inherit, the ownership of the asset, the repayment of a debt or the division of the inheritance.

The practical consequence of this distinction is significant. In a true action for recovery based on inheritance rights, a one-year or ten-year statute of limitations applies against a good-faith defendant, and a twenty-year period applies against a bad-faith defendant. Ordinary actions for recovery based on ownership, division and personal claims are not governed directly by these periods. The competent court, exclusive jurisdiction, joint action by the heirs and whether mediation is required may also vary according to the nature of the claim. TMK Articles 637–640.

This article completes the discussion of the certificate of inheritance, simulated transactions by the deceased, abatement and equalization of inheritance, with a focus on the actual recovery of the asset or of the value that replaces it. It deals in particular with bank transactions, transfers made on the basis of an incorrect certificate of inheritance, the gains of third parties and the limits of an heir bringing an action alone.

What does an action for recovery based on inheritance rights achieve?

Acquiring an inheritance is different from receiving the asset

Subject to statutory exceptions, the estate passes to the heirs upon death. A certificate of inheritance is a means of proof that declares this right. It does not show where all the estate assets are or who holds them. Even a person who appears as the sole heir on the certificate may be unable to use a property, reach bank funds or take delivery of a valuable item. In such a case, obtaining the certificate and bringing a recovery claim are separate steps. TMK Articles 598–600.

The claimant's aim is not merely a declaration that he or she is an heir, but the delivery of the estate or of specific assets. TMK Article 637 gives the judge the power to resolve disputes over heirship status as well. The presence of a certificate of inheritance in the file, therefore, does not mean that every heirship objection raised by the other side has been resolved in advance and conclusively.

The whole estate or specific assets may be claimed

The action may concern a house, a car, jewelry or money held in an account, or it may extend to the whole of the estate held by the defendant. The sale price in place of an asset, the expropriation payment or a specific insurance payment may also be examined where a connection is shown. In legal scholarship, this feature is explained by the comprehensive nature of the action and the return of substitute values. Eren, pp. 1048–1050, 1060.

However, a statement such as "I want all of my inheritance" does not remove the obligation to specify the dispute. The land registry details of known properties, bank and account relationships, the distinguishing features of movable property, and how and when the defendant obtained these assets must be disclosed. Where records are not yet known, the institution from which they are to be requested, and the period they cover, must be indicated. The judgment must contain an enforceable obligation to deliver or pay. HMK Articles 194, 219–221, 297.

Which action is appropriate for which dispute?

Distinguishing a superior inheritance right from joint heirship

A superior right does not always mean a larger share of the inheritance. For example, a child of the testator may rely on an heirship relationship that excludes a distant relative who claimed to be the sole heir, or that narrows that relative's rights. By contrast, where both siblings are accepted as heirs and only the question of who should receive the house is disputed, the matter is often a division.

Some decisions of the Court of Cassation classify disputes where there is no contest over heirship status as ordinary actions for recovery or as division. Legal scholarship includes views that take a broader approach to the defendant's position. For this reason, the analysis should not start from the title of the action alone. The claim, the defence, how the asset came into the estate and the judgment requested are examined together. Eren, pp. 1054–1056; 14th Civil Chamber, January 9, 2018, E. 2017/5151, K. 2018/95.

The table is not a mechanism for choosing an action. More than one claim may be required in the same case. For example, alongside the annulment of a will, the return of an asset delivered on the basis of that disposition may also be sought. In the petition, the facts on which each claim rests and the judgment expected must be stated separately. The judge makes the legal characterization, but cannot grant an unlimited form of relief different from the one the party has not requested. HMK Articles 26, 33, 110–111.

Why correcting the certificate of inheritance is not enough on its own

Cancelling an incorrect certificate of inheritance serves to identify the rights holder and his or her share. That decision does not automatically reverse the registration of a property transferred to a third party, nor a bank payment made earlier. If correction of the land registry record, delivery or a claim for money is required, the claim must be directed at the appropriate persons. How the certificate is obtained and how an incorrect certificate is annulled is the subject of the article on the certificate of inheritance and the review of the certificate of heirship.

Who may bring the action, and who is the defendant?

Statutory heir and appointed heir

TMK Article 637 identifies statutory and appointed heirs. The claimant must state the legal basis of his or her position, such as kinship, marriage or a disposition appointing an heir. If there is a dispute over refusal, waiver, forfeiture or disinheritance affecting heirship, the consequences of these are assessed separately. Being a forced heir (saklı paylı mirasçı) and being an heir are not the same thing. An action for recovery is not limited to forced heirs.

A recipient of a specific bequest of an asset is not, merely for that reason, an appointed heir. The claim of a creditor under a will (vasiyet alacaklısı) to whom a specific house or sum of money is left concerns, as a rule, the performance of the bequest debt. By contrast, a person appointed to receive all or a specified proportion of the estate has a different status. The legal content of the dispositions in the will, not the everyday wording in the text, is the basis of the analysis. TMK Articles 516–517, 600, 637.

The person holding the estate and the representation problem

The defendant is the person who holds the estate value claimed and against whom the duty of return is disputed. If cancellation of title is sought, the current registered owner must be identified. If payment is sought, the person who received, held or assumed the relevant debt must be identified. A bank does not become liable to repay every sum a customer withdraws merely because it keeps the account. If the bank is alleged to bear responsibility arising from its own transaction, the separate legal basis of that claim must be explained.

Where there are several heirs, the estate is subject to joint ownership by the heirs (elbirliği ortaklığı) until division. Claiming the return of joint estate assets is not the same request as collecting only the claimant's personal share or seeking protective measures for the estate. Where necessary, the participation or consent of the other heirs must be secured, and the appointment of an estate representative by the civil court of peace should be considered. Whether an appointed representative conducts the action properly is also checked separately. TMK Articles 640, 701–702.

Different decisions in a single heir's money claim

In its decision of January 9, 2025, E. 2024/1033, K. 2025/175, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) considered a claim for recovery of bank funds, said to have passed to a third party, in proportion to the claimant's share of the inheritance. The courts rejected the action on the ground that not all heirs had acted together. The Chamber stated that the claim concerned a divisible money receivable and quashed the rejection. This decision does not mean that the money was received unlawfully; it indicates that the merits must be examined. Full text of the decision.

In its decision of December 24, 2025, E. 2025/1896, K. 2025/5600, the same Chamber upheld, by majority, a rejection of a claim that the sum withdrawn from the deceased's accounts be paid to a sole heir in proportion to his share. The dissent argued that under TMK Article 637 a heir may bring the action alone, and that the merits should be examined. The majority reasoning is short, so the full differences between the two files cannot be extracted from the published text. Nevertheless, the dissent may not be presented as though it were the result adopted by the majority. Full text of the decision and dissent.

In its decision of March 26, 2026, E. 2026/1187, K. 2026/1706, the 3rd Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) held that whether the debtor is also an heir is decisive. It accepted that the other heirs may enforce and sue for their own shares against an heir who has accepted a debt arising from a contract with the testator. This decision cannot be generalized into the rule that every estate receivable may be collected by a single heir against a third party. Full text of the decision.

When these decisions are read together, an automatic conclusion that "money is divisible, so there is no need to join the parties" is not reliable. Whether the debtor is an heir, the source of the receivable, whether the claim is directed at a person or at the estate, and the correct nature of the action must be clarified in the petition.

How are the conditions of the action and the proof plan established?

Heirship, belonging to the estate and possession

The claimant must first set out the basis of heirship, show that the asset claimed belonged to the estate, and describe the relationship between the defendant and the duty of return. The fact that the testator was wealthy in the past does not by itself prove that a specific sum existed on the date of death and remained with the defendant. Nor does a transfer by itself explain whether the transaction was a gift, repayment of a debt, deposit or act under a representation.

The defendant may raise defences such as payment, a valid sale or gift, division, the defendant's own ownership, or a contract permitting the defendant to keep the asset. The burden of proof is determined by which party draws a conclusion in its own favour from each fact and by statutory presumptions. If the defendant admits receiving the money but claims to have repaid it, the fact of receipt and the fact of payment must be examined separately. TMK Articles 6–7; HMK Articles 190, 194.

Witnesses, electronic correspondence and bank records

Witnesses may explain who used the asset, how delivery took place, or what was said in family discussions. However, for legal transactions, proof by written document, the prohibition on witness evidence against a written document, the beginning of written proof and statutory exceptions apply separately. The statement "everything is proved by witness in an inheritance case" cannot be made. The date of the transaction and the legal position of the parties affect which rule of proof applies. HMK Articles 199–203.

E-mails and messages may show whose money it was or that an obligation to return it has been accepted. The integrity of the message, the identity of the sender and consistency with other records are important. The existence of a screenshot alone does not establish the accuracy of its content. Bank records should also be examined not as a few selected transactions taken out of context, but together with the period and the related accounts that explain the alleged movement.

The decision that a bank transfer is not a gift

In its decision of February 16, 2021, E. 2020/3483, K. 2021/955, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: The claimant asserted that he was the sole heir and that the testator's money was held in the accounts of persons who were not heirs. Bank movements and e-mails showed that the testator, who had sent the money, continued to exercise control over it. Since it had not been established that a gift had been made, the Chamber did not find it appropriate to proceed to abatement, and it quashed the judgment on the ground that the claim for recovery had to be examined. A transfer, by itself, is not a transaction that proves the intention to make a gift. The later outcome of this file is not stated in the text of the decision. Full text of the decision.

Time limits in an action for recovery based on inheritance rights

One-year, ten-year and twenty-year statutes of limitations

The periods in TMK Article 639 are statutes of limitations. They do not operate in the same way as preclusive periods, and a court does not take them into account of its own motion unless the limitation defence is properly raised. Suspension and interruption are assessed together with the nature of the special provision. TMK Article 639; TBK Articles 151, 153–154, 161.

In the case of statutory heirship, the start is, as a rule, the date of death. For appointment of an heir by will, the opening of the will is important. Appointment by an inheritance contract is not the same event as the opening of the will. It is not correct to apply the one-year short period automatically against a bad-faith defendant, but a claim of bad faith also does not suffice to benefit from the twenty-year period. The facts showing bad faith must be stated.

Hypothetical example: The testator died on March 4, 2024. A statutory heir, although aware of his or her own heirship, learned on September 18, 2026 that a particular collection was held by a good-faith defendant. If there is no interruption or suspension, the one-year period is calculated from September 18, 2026, which gives September 18, 2027. The ten-year outer limit runs from the date of death. If proof of an earlier correspondence shows an earlier date of learning, that changes the calculation. Statutory holiday and period calculation rules also apply.

How is the date of learning proved?

The date of death, the date the certificate of inheritance was obtained and the date on which the claimant learned that the asset was held by the defendant need not be the same. An earlier lawsuit, enforcement proceedings, a bank application or correspondence may be proof that the matter was learned earlier, in a later action. The starting facts relied on for the limitation defence and the later learning, interruption or suspension relied on by the claimant must each be set out separately.

In its decision of December 9, 2019, E. 2019/3156, K. 2019/8389, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: The dispute concerned transfers of money from a joint account to other accounts after death. The main action was accepted and the joined action was dismissed. The Chamber treated the earlier lawsuit date, June 2, 2009, as the date on which knowledge was established, and applied a one-year period for the joined action filed on December 11, 2012. It upheld the dismissal, and corrected the reasoning on abatement under TMK Article 571 to a limitation ground under TMK Article 639. This shows that acceptance in one claim and dismissal on the grounds of time may arise together in the same group of files. Full text of the decision.

Not every inheritance receivable is time-barred after one year

In its decision of January 9, 2018, E. 2017/5151, K. 2018/95, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: The testator's siblings claimed money withdrawn from a joint account by the surviving spouse. Since the status of heirs was not disputed, the dispute was treated as an ordinary action for recovery, and the rejection based on TMK Article 639 was quashed. The Chamber based its decision on the protection of ownership connected with the continued existence of the asset. Full text of the decision.

This approach does not mean that all money claims connected with the inheritance are unlimited. A claim arising from a contract, unjust enrichment, damages or ecrimisil may have its own periods. The source of the right and the nature of the claim must be identified first, and only then is the period calculated. Changing the name of the action alone does not restart a period that has already expired.

A notice of formal demand (ihtarname), a request for preservation of evidence or an application for a certificate of inheritance does not automatically interrupt the limitation period for all recovery claims. It matters which right and which person the action or enforcement concerns. In applications that end for reasons such as lack of jurisdiction, the different conditions of HMK Article 20 and TBK Article 158 must be examined separately. TBK Articles 154, 158.

Competent court, jurisdiction and mediation

Distinguishing the civil court of first instance from the civil court of peace

In an action for recovery based on inheritance rights, the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) is generally competent. If, however, the real claim is the division of the estate or the partition of co-ownership, the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) is competent. Establishing and protecting the estate is not the same as a contested action for delivery or collection. HMK Articles 2, 4.

In its decision of June 16, 2016, E. 2016/4569, K. 2016/7092, the 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: A claim for the value of animals in the estate, representing the share falling to the claimant, was referred to the civil court of peace, because there was no dispute as to heirship status and the claim was of a division nature. The decision is an order determining the competent court; it does not show that the claimant's claim for payment was accepted. The text contains contradictory statements about the defendant's position within the family, so the decision cannot be used as the basis for a generalization on this detail. Full text of the decision.

The testator's last place of residence

In a true action for recovery based on inheritance rights, the court of the testator's last place of residence has exclusive jurisdiction. This applies even where the dispute concerns a property located elsewhere. Where a separate action is brought directly concerning the title to real estate, HMK Article 12 is examined separately. The option in HMK Article 11(2), relating to the place where the asset is located during the drawing up and determination of the estate, does not allow every inheritance action to be brought wherever the claimant chooses. TMK Article 576; HMK Articles 11–12.

In its decision of June 3, 2024, E. 2024/3183, K. 2024/6786, the 5th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: In a jurisdictional dispute between the courts of Istanbul and Ankara, the last place of residence of the testator, Kadıköy, was held to make the Istanbul Anatolian Civil Court of First Instance competent. The file also raised whether a later-disclosed request for title constituted a proper amendment of the claim. The decision shows that the content of the claim and the nature of the action cannot be considered separately from the jurisdictional examination. Full text of the decision.

When is mediation required?

There is no general mandatory mediation requirement for an action based solely on TMK Article 637. However, where the dispute concerns the division of movable or immovable property, the partition of co-ownership or a lease relationship, Article 18/B of Law No. 6325 is relevant. Where a separate claim arises from a commercial or consumer transaction, the special conditions for that relationship may also become important. If one petition contains more than one claim, each claim must be examined separately. Law No. 6325, Article 18/B.

How are gifts, abatement, equalization and recovery distinguished?

Did the asset belong to the estate on the date of death?

Property that the testator validly sold or gave away during his or her lifetime cannot be treated as estate property merely because the heirs consider the transfer unfavourable. Where a valid gratuitous transfer infringes the reserved portion, abatement applies; where a transfer is made to be offset against a share of the inheritance, the conditions of equalization are examined. If the transaction differs in reality from the apparent sale, disguised transaction by the deceased (muris muvazaası) or other grounds of invalidity may arise.

The same method applies to bank money. Where the money was entrusted to the defendant by way of deposit or agency, and ownership remained with the testator, the return is examined. If a valid gratuitous transfer without consideration is established, abatement or equalization are assessed under different conditions. Whether the defendant is a statutory heir or not is also separately important for equalization. It is not correct to describe every gift to a third party as "equalization in the inheritance." TMK Articles 560, 565, 669–671.

Annulment of the will and a claim for return

The defendant may have received the property on the basis of a will appointing an heir. Where the claimant contends that the disposition is invalid, the ground of annulment and the time limit for annulment must be examined separately. A claim for delivery of the property, for correction of the land registry record or for payment may be framed together with an action for annulment or abatement. However, compliance with the time limit for one of these actions does not mean that all other claims are also in time. TMK Articles 557–559, 560, 571, 637–639.

For example, where a valid will appoints a person as heir, the mere assertion "I am the statutory heir" does not eliminate that person's acquisition. The claimant must set out the ground of annulment or the breach of the reserved portion. The claim for return must also be framed within the scope of the annulled disposition and the claimant's right; the whole estate cannot be given to each claimant as personal property.

How are estate assets protected while the action is pending?

Interim injunction and annotation on the land register

TMK Article 637 allows protective measures such as the provision of security or an annotation on the land register at the claimant's request. Under HMK Article 389 et seq., the risk that the right will become difficult to enforce or that serious harm will occur without delay, and the prima facie proof of the claim, must be explained. A current sale notice, rapid attempts to transfer or a real risk of the asset disappearing may be shown by concrete documents.

Commencing an action does not in itself create a prohibition on sale. The court's decision must clearly show what measure is applied to which asset, and it must be sent to the relevant land registry or enforcement office. A request for a measure over "all assets" will not be sufficient without identifying the subject of the action and showing proportionality. Where the aim is to secure the general assets of the debtor for a money claim, the conditions of a precautionary attachment under Article 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (İİK) must be assessed separately. HMK Articles 389–392; İİK Article 257.

Security, implementation and time limits for filing the main action

Security may be requested from the claimant for the damage that an unjustified measure might cause. There are statutory exceptions and a possibility of an unsecured measure with reasons given. The security that may be requested from the defendant under TMK Article 637 is different from the security that the party seeking the measure must provide under HMK Article 392.

Delivering the document initiating the main action to the officer carrying out the measure and ensuring it is placed in the file is also part of the obligation under HMK Article 397. If these steps are not taken, the measure may lapse of its own accord. It should not be assumed that an objection to a measure automatically suspends enforcement. HMK Articles 393–394, 397.

Establishing the estate and preserving evidence

To identify the assets, protective measures for the estate may be requested, and preservation of evidence may be sought for evidence that could be lost. The establishment can document the location or physical condition of the property, but it does not in every case resolve contested ownership or payment issues with a final judgment. Preservation of evidence does not replace the main action or the monitoring of time limits. TMK Articles 589–590; HMK Articles 400–403.

What happens if the asset is transferred to a third party?

A good-faith purchaser relying on the land register

The acquisition by a subsequent purchaser in a chain of transfers that followed a registration or transfer made on the basis of an incorrect certificate of inheritance is examined separately. The protection of a third party who acquired a property right in good faith by relying on the land register may arise under TMK Article 1023. A person who knew or should have known of the irregularity cannot be protected under TMK Article 1024. The fact that the first transaction was defective does not mean that all subsequent acquisitions are automatically invalid.

Good faith is assessed from the information available at the time of the transfer, the relationship between the parties, the actual use of the property, notices of the dispute, and the concrete circumstances of the transaction. A factor such as kinship or a low price does not by itself produce a definitive result in every file. The claimant must also support the claim directed at the subsequent purchaser with concrete facts. TMK Articles 3, 1023–1025.

Sale price, substitute value and damages

Where restitution in kind is no longer possible, the sale price retained by the transferor of the asset, or other substitute value, may be examined. Where damages are sought, the legal source of liability, the loss, the valuation date, the claimant's share and offsets must be explained. The claimant cannot recover both the whole of the asset and the whole of the price that replaces it for the same loss.

In its decision of December 10, 2019, E. 2019/2793, K. 2019/8511, the 14th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: Real estate was transferred on the basis of a document from which certain heirs had been excluded, and one of the properties was later donated to a foundation by a further transaction. The first-instance court rejected the claim concerning that property on the ground that no income had been derived from it. The Chamber held that the true heirs had not consented to the donation, and that damages in proportion to their shares should be assessed by reference to the value on the date of the action, and quashed the judgment. The file was classified as an ordinary action for recovery. This valuation date is not an unchanging rule applicable to all damages claims. Full text of the decision.

A transfer after the action has been brought

If the defendant transfers the subject of the action during the proceedings, the options under HMK Article 125 are considered. The claimant may, depending on the circumstances, continue against the transferee or convert the claim into a claim for damages against the transferor. This procedural option does not automatically eliminate the transferee's good-faith defence arising under substantive law. Current title and account records must be monitored throughout the proceedings, and after any new transfer the parties and the structure of the claim must be addressed without delay. HMK Article 125.

How are income, compensation for unjust occupation and expenses assessed?

Good faith affects the scope of the return

TMK Article 638 refers to the rules on possession for the purposes of return. The position of a good-faith possessor who uses property in the belief that he or she has a right, and the claims for expenses, differ from the liability of a bad-faith possessor. Necessary and useful expenses, products obtained, set-offs and the defence of refusal to return must be calculated separately. The bad-faith possessor's claim for expenses is more limited; liability may arise in respect of the products that the possessor obtained or failed to obtain. TMK Articles 993–995.

Rental income, agricultural produce, claims for use compensation or interest must be added to the principal return with an indication of the period and the legal ground. In particular, in compensation for unjust occupation between co-heirs, the prohibition on use and its exceptions are examined separately. An order for return of the asset does not mean that the same amount of compensation for unjust occupation is automatically payable for all past use.

The decision upholding partial acceptance of a claim for the price

In its decision of February 6, 2023, E. 2021/6202, K. 2023/674, the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation: One heir sought his share of the price received by another heir for a property left by the testator. It was held that the property came from the testator, that a valid division could not be proved, and that the person who received the price was a bad-faith possessor. The appeal against the partial acceptance judgment, which had been reached by examining the claimant's share and the nature of the expenses, was dismissed and this was upheld. The Chamber treated the dispute as an ordinary action for recovery. The value of the decision lies not only in the outcome "the heir was right," but in the joint examination of earlier statements, the defence of division and the calculation of expenses. Full text of the decision.

Hypothetical calculation: If an amount of TL 1,200,000 in principal and TL 120,000 in income are included in the return account, and TL 20,000 in expenses are deducted, the net value is TL 1,300,000. If the claimant's individual right to collect and his one-quarter share are also accepted, the share calculation is TL 325,000. No interest, tax, attorney's fees or other costs have been added to this example. If the return is to be made to the estate, this arithmetic does not justify payment of the sum directly to a single heir.

The relief sought and the 2026 procedural change

Delivery, registration and money claims must be stated clearly

The narrative of facts in the petition and the judgment requested must follow in sequence. For real estate, the block, parcel, independent unit and share sought must be specified; for movable property, its distinguishing features; for money, the amount, currency, the transaction relied on and the claim for interest. The relationship between return in kind and the price must be explained, and where necessary an alternative claim (terditli talep) must be framed in accordance with the conditions of HMK Article 111.

The order of claims that may be drawn up according to the file may include the following elements:

1. Acceptance of the claimant's claim based on his or her superior inheritance right, and delivery of the estate value stated to the appropriate rights holder, or the necessary correction of the land register.
2. An alternative claim for price or damages, put forward in case restitution in kind is legally or factually impossible.
3. Itemised claims for income, interest or loss, with the necessary offsets made.
4. Provisional protection and litigation costs proportionate to the action.

This order is not a ready-made petition. Defendants, types of claim and their bases change, and so do the alternative or joint claims that may be advanced. A claim should not be framed in such a way that the whole and the price of the same asset are both awarded, creating double recovery.

The current position on HMK Articles 107 and 109

Law No. 7589, which entered into force on July 31, 2026, repealed HMK Article 107 and added a new paragraph to Article 109, which regulates partial actions. Under the current Article 109(4), where part of a receivable is claimed, the claim may, in the same action and once, be increased until the end of the investigation, without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. In that case, for the part by which the claim is increased, the limitation period is also deemed interrupted from the date of the action. Law No. 7589, Articles 19–20 and 26.

Transitional Article 1(10) continues to apply the former Article 107 to actions brought before the repeal. Accordingly, the date of the earlier action and the date of an action brought today must be kept distinct. The new partial action provision does not remove the obligations to explain the underlying legal relationship, to define the claim, to complete the fee, and to observe the timing of any increase. It should not be assumed that every claim that was not increased is protected in every case.

The abolition of the action for an indeterminate receivable from the law is debated in legal scholarship, and the consequences for the typology of actions are discussed. That debate does not justify applying the repealed Article 107 directly as if it were a provision applicable to all new actions. New monetary claims should be framed on the basis of the current procedural text and the transitional provision. Özekes, pp. 2, 6–8.

Foreign element, declaration of absence and the Treasury

Foreign inheritance and real estate in Türkiye

Where the testator is a foreigner or the assets are located in different countries, the applicable law and the jurisdiction of Turkish courts must be determined first. MÖHUK (Law No. 5718) Article 20 generally subjects inheritance to the national law of the deceased; Turkish law applies to real estate in Türkiye. The second paragraph of the same article is also relevant to the opening, acquisition and division of an inheritance. Article 43 of Law No. 5718 takes the deceased's last place of residence in Türkiye as the reference point, and failing that, the place where the estate assets are located. Law No. 5718, Articles 20 and 43. For foreign testators and heirs living abroad, see the article on inheritance devolution for foreigners and persons living abroad in Türkiye.

The effect in Türkiye of a foreign certificate of inheritance, a will and a court decision depends on the type of document. Not every foreign document requires the same recognition or enforcement procedure. Translation, certification and, where necessary, an examination for recognition are separate matters. Where a dispute is governed by foreign law, the one-, ten- and twenty-year periods of Turkish law should not be applied directly to every claim without examination. For the recognition and enforcement of foreign documents, see the article on use in Türkiye of a foreign certificate of inheritance.

The return of the absentee or the later appearance of the true heir

Where the estate has been delivered following a declaration of absence (gaiplik), the reinstatement provision of TMK Article 585 is considered if the absentee appears or the superior rights holder proves his or her status. The limitation period for the duty of return of the recipient in good faith is significantly referred to the limitation period for an action for recovery based on inheritance rights. Where the transfer to the Treasury is concerned, the transfer following a declaration of absence and the position of the State where the heir is unknown are not the same event. The conditions of TMK Articles 588 and 594 must be examined separately. TMK Articles 585, 588, 594. For the transfer of the estate to the State and the position of an heir who appears later, see the article on unknown heirs and the transfer of the estate to the State.

The fact that an entry is recorded in the name of the State does not by itself end the claim of a person who later appears claiming to be an heir. On the other hand, showing a family connection alone does not establish a superior right over all real estate. The legal cause of the transfer, the previous judgment, the identity of the property, the chain of heirship and the time limits must be examined together.

Litigation costs, remedies and enforcement of the judgment

Fees and costs are determined by the claim

In claims concerning property, the value of the action and the proportional fee are relevant. Where more than one claim is made, it must be checked which values are independent and which aim at the same economic result. Costs of experts, on-site examination, service and translation vary according to the file. Security is a separate item. Court fees, attorney's fees and other expenses cannot be substituted for one another, and no single definitive total can be given without a verified current fee schedule and the value of the action. Law No. 492 on Court Fees; HMK Articles 323–326.

Where the claim is partly accepted, expenses may be shared in proportion to success. A dismissal on procedural grounds, or a claim directed at the wrong person, may also have cost consequences. For this reason, the correct parties and the structure of the claim matter as much as the strength of the evidence. The relationship of the file with the general inheritance process may be considered within inheritance law services.

Appeal and appeal on points of law do not follow the same rules in every decision

The general period for appeal (istinaf) and for appeal on points of law (temyiz) is two weeks from proper service. Whether an appeal is open depends on the type of decision, the monetary thresholds and the current transitional rules. Because of the changes made to HMK Article 362 in 2026, no conclusion should be drawn merely from the former appeal threshold. The correction procedures stated at the end of earlier Court of Cassation decisions do not apply directly to new actions. HMK Articles 341, 345, 361–362.

The land registry, delivery and collection stage

Decisions concerning the substance of real estate cannot be carried out before they become final. For monetary provisions, however, recourse to a legal remedy does not, as a rule, suspend enforcement of its own accord; suspension of enforcement and special provisions are assessed separately. The delivery of movable property, the delivery of real estate and the collection of money require different enforcement procedures. HMK Articles 350, 367; Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İİK) Articles 24, 26 and 36.

The clear identification of the property and of the rights holder in the judgment becomes important at this stage. The monetary equivalent where movable property cannot be found during enforcement is not the same as an independent claim for damages from the outset. The scope of the court decision, the condition of the property at hand and Article 24 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law are examined together. After delivery or collection has been achieved, the fate of any continuing measures and of set-off transactions must also be followed.

Conclusion

In an action for recovery based on inheritance rights, a successful legal approach begins by clarifying the claimant's heirship right, whether the asset belonged to the estate, and the form of return sought. A bank transfer is not always a gift. Cancelling an incorrect certificate of inheritance does not automatically reverse all transfers. Not every money claim connected with the inheritance is subject to the same statute of limitations.

In preparing the action, the date of death and of learning, the chain of transfers, account movements, participation of the heirs and the need for protective measures must be examined together. In particular, the claim of a single heir for money and the 2026 procedural changes must not rest on a general sentence from an old decision. A judgment that secures return of the asset can be obtained by a claim directed at the right person, supported by concrete evidence, and framed with sufficient precision to be implemented at the delivery or collection stage.

For related aspects, you may read our article on disinheritance (mirastan yoksunluk).

Frequently Asked Questions

Must I be a forced heir to bring an action for recovery based on inheritance rights?

No. TMK Article 637 is based on statutory or appointed heirship. The reserved portion is especially important for abatement. In the concrete case, the claimant must have a basis for heirship and a superior right. Details: Parties.

If my sibling does not hand over estate property, can I bring this action directly?

Not in every case. If both of your heirships are undisputed and the problem is division, division is the appropriate remedy. Where a specific asset or sum of money is wrongly withheld, an appropriate claim for return or for payment is assessed. The jurisdiction and time limit depend on this. Details: types of action.

Does the one-year period always start on the date of death?

No. Against a good-faith defendant, the short period depends on the learning by the claimant that he or she is an heir and that the defendant holds the estate value. The date of death or the opening of the will is important for the long period. Details: time limits.

If the defendant is in bad faith, is the twenty-year period calculated from the date of learning?

As a rule, no. The twenty-year period is assessed on the basis of the opening of the inheritance or of the relevant will. Bad faith, the starting point and the grounds for interruption or suspension are assessed according to the concrete circumstances. Details: time limits.

May a sole heir claim only his or her own share?

This is possible depending on the nature of the claim, but there is no general freedom to do so. The identity of the debtor, whether the other heir or a third party, the source of the money claim, and whether return to the estate is requested are all important. The decisions of 2025 and 2026 discussed in the article illustrate these distinctions. Details: a single heir's action.

Does the sale of the property stop automatically when an action is filed?

No. An appropriate measure must be requested, a court order obtained and its implementation secured. There are separate time limits for implementing a measure and for filing the main action after a pre-action measure. Details: interim protection.

Is money sent to another account necessarily a gift?

No. The purpose of the transfer and whether the sender continued to exercise control over the money are investigated. Bank records, the agency relationship, correspondence and the parties' statements are assessed together. Details: bank records.

If the asset has been sold to a good-faith third party, do all rights end?

No. Restitution in kind and the protection of the third party are examined separately. Claims for the sale price, substitute value or damages where the conditions are met may arise against the transferor; double recovery is not permitted. Details: subsequent transfers.

Does obtaining an establishment of the estate protect the time limit for bringing an action?

It cannot be accepted that it protects all time limits on its own. The purpose of the establishment is to identify the assets and evidence. The main claim, the steps that interrupt limitation and, where necessary, protective measures must be followed separately. Details: establishment procedures.

If the price is unknown, may an old petition for an indeterminate receivable be used?

It should not be used without first checking the filing date. HMK Article 107 was repealed on July 31, 2026, and a transitional provision applies to actions brought earlier. For new money claims, the current Article 109/4 and the features of the file must be considered. Details: the 2026 procedural change.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu), in particular Articles 3, 6–7, 516–517, 557–571, 576, 585, 588–590, 594, 598–600, 637–642, 669–671, 683, 701–702, 993–995, 1023–1025.
• Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 4, 11–12, 20, 26, 33, 109–111, 125, 190, 194, 199–203, 219–221, 297, 323–326, 341, 345, 350, 361–362, 367, 389–403.
• Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), Articles 82, 146, 151, 153–154, 158, 161.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 18/B.
• Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), Articles 7, 20, 43, 50 and 58.
• Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (İcra ve İflâs Kanunu), Articles 24, 26, 36 and 257; Law No. 492 on Court Fees (Harçlar Kanunu), provisions on judicial fees.
• Law No. 7589 Amending Certain Laws on the Effective and Efficient Functioning of the Judiciary (Yargının Etkin ve Verimli İşlemesine Yönelik Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılmasına Dair Kanun), adopted: July 16, 2026; Official Gazette: July 31, 2026, no. 33326; Articles 19–20, 25–26, provisional Article 1(10).

Court of Cassation decisions

• 7th Civil Chamber, January 9, 2025, E. 2024/1033, K. 2025/175: Divisible money receivable and claim in proportion to the share; quashed.
• 7th Civil Chamber, December 24, 2025, E. 2025/1896, K. 2025/5600: Upholding of the rejection of a sole heir's claim for collection; dissent.
• 3rd Civil Chamber, March 26, 2026, E. 2026/1187, K. 2026/1706: Claim by the other heirs for their shares against an heir who is a debtor; upheld.
• 14th Civil Chamber, February 16, 2021, E. 2020/3483, K. 2021/955: Transfers between accounts, e-mail and intention to make a gift; quashed.
• 14th Civil Chamber, December 9, 2019, E. 2019/3156, K. 2019/8389: Acceptance in the principal action, limitation in the joined action; upheld with correction of reasoning.
• 14th Civil Chamber, January 9, 2018, E. 2017/5151, K. 2018/95: Non-application of TMK Article 639 to an ordinary action for recovery; quashed.
• 20th Civil Chamber, June 16, 2016, E. 2016/4569, K. 2016/7092: Civil court of peace in a division dispute; determination of competent court.
• 5th Civil Chamber, June 3, 2024, E. 2024/3183, K. 2024/6786: Last place of residence and nature of the action; determination of competent court.
• 14th Civil Chamber, December 10, 2019, E. 2019/2793, K. 2019/8511: Transfer on the basis of an incorrect document, subsequent donation and damages in proportion to shares; quashed.
• 7th Civil Chamber, February 6, 2023, E. 2021/6202, K. 2023/674: Ordinary action for recovery, division defence, bad faith and expenses; upheld.

Academic sources

• Fikret Eren, “Action for Recovery Based on Inheritance Rights” (“Miras Sebebiyle İstihkak Davası”), Marmara University Faculty of Law Law Research Journal (Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi), 2016, vol. 22, issue 3, pp. 1045–1061; in particular pp. 1048–1056, 1060.
• Muhammet Özekes, “Partial Action and Indeterminate Receivable Action After the Amendment of HMK by Law No. 7589” (“HMK’da 7589 s.K. Değişikliği Sonrası Kısmî Dava ve Belirsiz Alacak Davası”), presentation accessible on the server of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği), in particular pp. 2, 6–8; accessed October 12, 2026.