Action to Annul a Will: Grounds for Annulment, Time Limits and Legal Consequences

A will may be annulled in whole or in part by court order where the decedent lacked capacity, where the decedent's intent was defective, where the will is contrary to law or morality, or where the statutory form was not observed. The heir or legatee with an interest in the annulment ordinarily applies to the civil court of first instance at the decedent's last place of residence. The one-year period for learning of the grounds and the outer limits of ten or twenty years are assessed together. An annulment ruling does not mean that the estate must necessarily be divided equally among all heirs; the scope of the ruling, its parties and the valid dispositions that remain are decisive. (TMK Art. 557–559, 576; HMK Art. 2, 11; 1, 2)

The fact that a will is considered unfair, was drawn up before a notary, was made in old age, or leaves one child more property than the others does not by itself determine the outcome of an action. First it must be established what legal problem exists: is there a defect in the formation of the final wishes, has the reserved portion been infringed, or is the question how a valid will should be carried out? This guide examines the annulment action under Turkish law, and how inheritance rights are exercised after a ruling, through these distinctions.

What Does an Action to Annul a Will Change?

An annulment action aims to remedy a legal defect in a mortis causa disposition after the decedent's death. A will that is subject to annulment under TMK Art. 557 does not cease to be effective merely because one heir alleges invalidity. The court examines the facts alleged, the evidence, the right of action and the time limits; the effect of the ruling is also determined by that examination and the relief sought. This structure differs from a general right to "object to a will" that is not based on a statutory ground. (1, 10)

Opening a will and annulling it are separate procedures. The civil court of peace opens the will delivered to it and reads it to the interested parties, without examining whether it is valid. The opening file establishes the decedent's last wishes; it does not replace a detailed judicial review of capacity or pressure. For this reason, the view that "the court has read the will, so it can no longer be annulled" is not correct. Likewise, filing an objection petition in the opening file does not have the same effect as filing an annulment action in the civil court of first instance. (TMK Art. 595–598; 1)

Withdrawing a will by the testator during his or her lifetime is also distinct from an annulment action. Revocation may arise through a new will in the form permitted by law, through destruction, or through related dispositions. An heir apparent's future expectation does not confer a right to annul the will of a living person. If the document is forged, contains no testamentary intent, or is merely a draft, the question may first be whether a will exists in legal terms at all, before any question of annulment arises. Such a claim should not be automatically treated as falling entirely under TMK Art. 559; the nature of the document and the protection sought must be determined. (TMK Art. 542–544; Arslan, pp. 696–698; 1, 9)

In What Circumstances May a Will Be Annulled?

TMK Art. 557 provides for four principal grounds. Not every ground is proven by the same evidence. Where there are several defects, each must be explained by separate events, and it must be shown which provision is sought to be annulled and why. The court's application of the law on its own initiative does not remove the party's burden of setting out the concrete facts. (1, 2)

The Decedent Lacked Capacity to Make a Will

To make a will, a person must have reached the age of fifteen and possess the capacity to understand the nature of the act. The conditions of majority and non-incapacity required for an inheritance contract cannot be transferred to a will as they stand. The central question is the moment of drafting the will: could the person understand the meaning of the act, its effect on his or her assets, and who would benefit from it? (TMK Art. 13, 502–503; 1)

Old age alone is not a lack of capacity. The existence of a dementia diagnosis is assessed together with the date of the diagnosis and the course of the illness. A guardianship (vesayet) order issued later does not automatically invalidate all earlier acts. On the other hand, if severe cognitive impairment, a change in consciousness or the effect of medication at the time of drafting is established by concrete records, a specialist examination directed at the day of the act becomes important.

A claimant should not merely say that the decedent "was very old"; he or she should present hospital files, examination records, medications used and witnesses who relied on direct observation for the relevant period. The defendant may rely on consistent conduct during the same period, the medical assessment and the circumstances in which the act was carried out. A medical report is an important piece of evidence; it is not a conclusive answer that makes all other data unnecessary. The medical assessment of capacity should focus on the date of the document and on the type of act. (TMK Art. 6; HMK Art. 190, 266; Arslan, pp. 699–702; 1, 2, 9)

Mistake, Fraud, Duress or Coercion

The decedent's genuine intent may have been steered by false information or pressure. However, close family ties, a relative providing care, or a relative benefiting from the will are not by themselves evidence of fraud or coercion. The alleged conduct must be explained: when it occurred, by whom it was carried out and how it affected the decision to make the will. For example, deliberately false information that an heir has died cannot be treated in the same legal way as an ordinary family disagreement.

TMK Art. 504 contains an important exception: if the decedent does not withdraw the disposition within one year after learning of the mistake or fraud, or after freeing himself or herself from the effect of duress or coercion, the disposition is treated as valid. This one year is not the same as the one-year period that an heir has for an annulment action. The defendant may argue that the defect was subsequently remedied in this way, and the date on which the mistake was learned or the effect ended also becomes part of the dispute. (1)

Where there is a clear error in the identification of a person or property, the will may be corrected if the decedent's true wish can be determined with certainty. Accordingly, not every error in a name or plot number requires the annulment of the whole will. The distinction must be drawn between an error that can be resolved by interpretation and a defect in the formation of the intent. For cases in which not every uncertainty is a ground for annulment, the article on interpretation of a will may also be consulted.

The Content, a Condition or a Burden Is Contrary to Law or Morality

The content of the will is examined as well as any conditions and burdens attached to the benefit. Making a benefit conditional on the performance of unlawful conduct, or a provision that unacceptably restricts a person's fundamental freedoms, may constitute a ground for annulment. On the other hand, a decedent's resentment toward an heir or preference for another person is not, by itself, contrary to law or morality. The consequences of unlawful conditions and burdens are explained separately in the article on conditions and burdens in a will.

TMK Art. 515 provides for meaningless conditions and burdens, or those that are merely offensive to others, to be assessed separately and disregarded. It is therefore important to determine which disposition the unlawfulness affects, and whether the remaining arrangement can stand. The claimant should show not merely a result he or she dislikes, but which rule of law or moral limit the concrete content breaches. The defendant may argue for a lawful interpretation of the provision and for its separability from other dispositions. (TMK Art. 515, 557–558; 1)

The Will Was Not Drawn Up in the Statutory Form

Turkish law recognises the official will, the holographic will and, exceptionally, the oral will. Examination of form begins with identifying which type of document is involved. A statement that "there is a signature" or "there is a notary stamp" does not show that all formal requirements have been met. (TMK Art. 531–541; 1)

In an official will, the procedure carried out with the competent officer and two witnesses is examined, together with the signatures and the necessary declarations. The procedure applies differently where the decedent can read and sign and where he or she cannot read or cannot sign. In particular, the conditions relating to reading and to witness statements under TMK Art. 535 must be checked against the document. Circumstances that prevent a person from acting as a witness, and a benefit conferred on a witness or on certain relatives, are also different problems. Under the prohibition on benefits in TMK Art. 558/3, only the benefit in question is annulled; this result cannot be applied automatically to all witness prohibitions.

In a holographic will, the entire text must be handwritten by the decedent, dated by stating the year, month and day, and signed. Depositing it with a notary is not mandatory for its safekeeping. A text prepared on a computer and only signed by hand does not therefore replace a holographic will. The original document should be examined for handwriting, signature, date, insertions and deletions. The nature of the defect and the possibility of remedy by interpretation must be assessed; the same result cannot be stated for every case without this assessment.

An oral will is specific to exceptional circumstances in which other forms of will cannot be used. The statement must be made to two witnesses, and must be transmitted to the court in accordance with the legal procedure and without delay. If one month passes after the decedent has become able to make a will in another form, the oral will lapses. This period is not the time limit for the heir's annulment action. A sound or video recording, without the procedure required by law, does not by itself create a new type of will.

The view that a will drawn up before a notary is necessarily invalid if no medical board report was obtained is also not sustainable. In its decision of May 9, 2024, E. 2023/2763, K. 2024/2486, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) upheld a dismissal in a case where the objection that there was no board report was rejected and lack of defect of intent could not be proven. The decision does not mean that capacity will never be examined in any file; it shows that the type of medical report and the statutory form requirements must not be confused. (6)

Who May Bring the Action and Against Whom?

Under TMK Art. 558, an heir or legatee with an interest in annulment may bring the action. The interest relates to whether the annulment would improve the claimant's position under inheritance law. For this reason, any relative cannot be a claimant merely because of kinship. An appointed heir or a person benefiting under an earlier will may also be considered, provided that he or she sets out his or her own legal interest in concrete terms. It is not mandatory in every annulment action for the claimant to be a holder of a reserved portion. (1)

The action is directed against the person or persons who benefit against the claimant from the disposition sought to be annulled. The beneficiary must be identified by the benefit he or she receives. The notary who drew up the will is not, merely by reason of that role, a defendant in the annulment action; any possible liability of the notary is a separate matter subject to separate conditions. Bringing the action against the deceased testator is also not the correct party arrangement.

A single heir may bring the action without all other heirs necessarily being claimants. However, it should not be assumed that a person who did not join the action will automatically benefit from a ruling obtained by another. Joining as an intervening party to press a claim in one's own name is also not the same thing. The time limit and procedure for a person seeking the declaration of his or her own right should be assessed separately. (12)

Where a minor or a person under restriction is an heir, the power of representation, the necessary permissions and any conflict of interest must be checked. If the legal representative also benefits from the will, the appointment of a curator for representation may become necessary. The existence of these matters does not mean that the time limit for the action never runs; representation and the dates of learning must be examined against the documents.

How Are Time Limits Calculated in an Action to Annul a Will?

The Start of the One-Year Period

The one-year period begins when the claimant learns of the disposition, the ground for annulment and that he or she is an entitled person. All three elements are required. It is not correct to rely solely on the date of death or the date the will was drawn up. Each claimant may learn at a different time; notifications, the opening record, earlier petitions and correspondence showing this are important. (TMK Art. 559; 1)

Knowing the ground for annulment is not the same as gathering all the evidence that would conclusively win the case. Where discomfort or a defect in form was known on the day of the act, obtaining an expert report years later does not in every case start a new period. Where a claimant relies on later learning, he or she should explain which new fact was learned and when; the defendant should be able to produce documents pointing to earlier knowledge.

Waiting for the opening decision to become final is not a safe way to calculate the period. In its decision of January 14, 2020, E. 2019/4002, K. 2020/80, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi) departed from an earlier approach centred on finality and adopted the learning criterion set out in the law. The same approach appears in its decision of October 27, 2020, E. 2020/3118, K. 2020/6145. Where learning has taken place, waiting for the finality of the opening record may result in the loss of the right. (5)

The Ten- and Twenty-Year Outer Limits

For wills, the outer limit runs from the opening of the will. It is ten years against a defendant acting in good faith, and twenty years against a defendant not acting in good faith. The defendant's good faith relates to his or her knowledge of the ground for annulment and to the concrete circumstances; merely not accepting the claim is not in itself evidence of bad faith. The fact that the outer limit has not expired does not revive a one-year period that has already passed. (1)

In its decision of November 26, 2025, E. 2025/604, K. 2025/5043, the Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) upheld a dismissal based on the one-year period, assessing the reading of the will to the testator and later dates. The argument that the ten-year period had not expired did not change the result. This example shows that, where the represented person is concerned, the learning and the later position of the successors to that person must also be examined against the file history. (7)

A written date alone is not sufficient for these time limits. The death, the opening, the service of notice and the learning of each ground for annulment should all be shown on the same timeline. For example, in a hypothetical case in which the will and the claimant's status were learned of in March, while a deception affecting the testator's intent was learned of in May, the May date is discussed only for the newly learned ground. If it is proven that the deception was known earlier, the calculation changes. The outer limit is checked separately.

A forfeiture period is taken into account by the court on its own initiative. Ordinary family discussions, a notary's formal notice or a criminal complaint do not replace bringing an annulment action. The effect of mediation carried out within the legal framework on the time limits is assessed under the specific provisions; the assumption that "we are talking, so the time limit has stopped" cannot be made. (1, 3)

Which Court Has Jurisdiction, and Is Mediation Required?

The competent court for an annulment action is the civil court of first instance. In a dispute with no foreign element, the court at the decedent's last place of residence has exclusive jurisdiction. The fact that the will was drawn up before a notary in another city, or that the property is located in another province, does not by itself change this rule. The last place of residence is also not always the same as a temporary hospital or care-home address. (TMK Art. 19–22, 576; HMK Art. 2, 11; 1, 2)

There is no general mandatory mediation requirement for a claim solely to annul a will. However, a separate dispute, such as the division of an estate or the partition of co-owned property, may be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. That these disputes involve the same family or the same land does not mean that all types of action are subject to the same precondition. Claims brought together or in succession are assessed by their own nature. (Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes Art. 18/B; 3)

Voluntary mediation may be considered in an area in which the parties may freely dispose of their rights. However, the effect of an agreement is limited to those who signed it; the conditions required for land registry transactions and the powers of representation are examined separately. The time limit for a forfeiture period is not regarded as suspended unless the start and end of properly conducted mediation are documented. (Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes Art. 1, 16, 18; 3)

How Are Incapacity, Pressure, Fraud and Defects of Form Proven?

As a general rule, the party relying on a fact must prove it. The claimant must set out the ground for annulment with specificity, and the defendant must support any defence, such as recovery, a different date of learning or the formal validity of the document, with evidence. In assessing capacity, features such as the nature and continuity of an illness may affect the evaluation of proof. The burden of proof therefore cannot be reduced to a single slogan that applies to every claim. (TMK Art. 6; HMK Art. 190; 1, 2)

The frequency with which a witness saw the decedent, how close in time the witness observed him or her to the date of the act, and the source of the witness's knowledge are all important. A general statement that the decedent "was forgetful" does not carry the same weight as direct observation of an inability to recognise particular persons on a particular date. Similarly, the fact that a relative organised the transaction does not by itself prove pressure; it must be explained how the person's ability to decide freely was removed.

A notarised document has the evidential force of an official document; however, the procedure and statements observed by the official who acted do not cover the decedent's entire medical history. The expert is not tasked with determining the legal consequence. The question the expert must answer concerns a fact within his or her field of expertise; the court decides whether the conditions for annulment are met. Where there is a contradictory report, the concrete points of contradiction should be identified and clarification or a supplementary examination requested. (HMK Art. 204, 266, 281–282; 2)

Evidence obtained unlawfully may not be taken into account by the court. For health records and private correspondence, relevance, authority and lawful access are assessed. Rather than obtaining account passwords or collecting private communications without permission, the necessary records should be obtained through the court and the documents securely preserved. (HMK Art. 189/2; 2)

What Is the Difference Between an Annulment Action and an Abatement Action?

Annulment is directed at a legal defect in the formation or content of the will. Abatement, by contrast, seeks to reduce the part of a valid bequest that exceeds the limit of the reserved portion. For this reason, the fact that a child is left no property at all is not, by itself, a ground for annulment within the meaning of TMK Art. 557. First, the reserved portion, the scope of the estate and the effect of the bequests are calculated. (TMK Art. 505–508, 560–571; 1)

The reserved portion and the statutory share of inheritance are not the same. For example, the reserved portion of descendants is half of the statutory share. For each of the parents, the proportion is one quarter of the statutory share. The spouse's reserved portion varies according to the class of heirs with whom he or she inherits jointly. Siblings have no reserved portion; nevertheless, they may be able to bring an annulment action if the conditions are met. This distinction prevents the idea that "anyone who can seek annulment can also seek abatement". (TMK Art. 506; 1)

Annulment and abatement may, where the circumstances allow, be pursued in the alternative: annulment first, and abatement if annulment is not accepted. The facts, time limits and fees of each claim must be assessed on their own. If the court dismisses the claim for annulment, that does not on its own bring before the court an abatement claim that was not properly raised. (HMK Art. 26, 33, 111; 2)

In its decision of April 29, 2026, E. 2025/247, K. 2026/282, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) accepted that an alternative abatement claim existed, assessing the petition as a whole, the description of the reserved portion, the fees paid and the course of the proceedings. The opposing view had based its conclusion on the absence of an express request and on the finding at the preliminary stage; the majority quashed the resistance decision. This case shows that a claim cannot be identified merely by looking at the heading of the petition. Rather than drafting an unclear claim in reliance on this, the legal protection sought should be stated expressly. (8)

Disinheritance must also be examined separately. Leaving a person a small amount of property is not always disinheritance. Where a genuine disinheritance provision exists, the special provisions of TMK Art. 510–512 apply to the stated ground and proof of its accuracy. A claim of disguised transaction (muris muvazaası) concerning a transfer of immovable property made by the decedent during his or her lifetime also requires an assessment of a different transaction and a different action from the annulment of the will.

How Does the Proceeding Work, and How Is Interim Protection Obtained?

In preparing the action, the full copy of the will, the opening record and the service documents are examined together. The petition must make clear which provision of which will is sought to be annulled, against whom, and on account of which event. Merely listing statutory articles does not replace a narrative of the facts. Where abatement, return of property or a land registry claim is also sought, these must be framed separately and in accordance with procedure.

The proceedings follow the petitions, the preliminary examination, the gathering of evidence, an expert examination where necessary, and the stages of judgment. Mistakes in identifying the dispute in the preliminary examination record may cause problems later. The parties should show which claim each piece of evidence relates to, and must comply with the time limits set by the court. Adding claims or evidence later is not unlimited. (HMK Art. 119, 137–141, 145, 194; 2)

Does the Sale of the Property Stop Automatically When an Action Is Filed?

No. Filing the action alone does not freeze the entire estate. Where transfer or disposal of the property would substantially hinder the enforcement of the right, a proportionate interim injunction linked to the subject of the dispute may be requested. The application should explain which transaction on which property must be restricted, and why; approximate proof of the right and of the danger must be provided. Whether security is required is also assessed separately. (HMK Art. 389–392; 2)

Where there are risks such as the loss of a document or a witness who could not later be heard, preservation of evidence may be relevant; where the estate needs to be protected, measures specific to inheritance law may arise. The aims and conditions of these routes are different. Granting a measure does not show that the annulment action has been won, and its refusal does not mean that the merits of the action are necessarily unfounded. (HMK Art. 400 et seq.; TMK Art. 589 et seq.; 1, 2)

What If Performance of the Will Is Sought?

A beneficiary under the will, seeking performance of the bequest, may face an annulment action concerning the same will. Depending on the connection between the proceedings, it may be considered whether the annulment proceedings should be treated as a preliminary issue. However, the existence of an annulment action is not a general rule that automatically stays all other proceedings. (HMK Art. 165; 2)

TMK Art. 559/2 provides that invalidity may always be raised by way of defence. This is a defence against a claim based on a will that has not yet been performed. It is not a means of reopening an independent annulment or restitution action whose time limit has expired. The concrete ground and the evidence for the defence must be shown in the defence, and it must be distinguished whether the claim is for performance, for a declaration, or for the recovery of ownership. (1)

If a Will Is Annulled, to Whom Does the Estate Pass?

An annulment ruling removes, with retroactive effect within the scope of the ruling, the disposition that has been declared invalid. Nevertheless, to determine to whom the estate passes and in what proportions, one cannot look only at the heading of the decision. First, the annulled provision, the parties to the action and the valid arrangements that remain must be identified. (TMK Art. 558, 599; 1, 10)

Full Annulment and Partial Annulment

A will may contain several independent bequests. A defect found in relation to one of them does not necessarily mean that the others are also eliminated. For example, where the prohibition on bequests in favour of a witness or certain close relatives under TMK Art. 558/3 applies, the law provides only for the annulment of that bequest. As to other defects, the connection between the provisions and the decedent's intent is assessed.

Full annulment is not the same as the actual division of the whole estate under a court order. The question of which relationship between the claimant and the beneficiary is altered by the annulment ruling is also significant. For this reason, the share to be obtained as a result of the action cannot be finally determined before the action is brought, by looking only at the list of property in the will.

Does an Earlier Will Take Effect Again?

It cannot be said that an earlier will automatically and in every case takes effect again. The effect of a later will on the earlier arrangement, whether there is a valid act of revocation, and whether the annulment extends to the intent to revoke, are all examined. The chronological order of multiple wills, provisions that complete or modify each other, and any separate revocation document must be read together. (TMK Art. 542–544; 1)

Where a valid earlier arrangement exists, or other dispositions not affected by the annulment, the division is affected by those. Where no such arrangement exists, statutory succession rules apply in the area affected by the annulment ruling. The statement that "the last will has been annulled, so all property is divided equally" is therefore an incomplete explanation in most cases.

Where an earlier disposition takes effect again, there is a special provision on the abatement time limit: TMK Art. 571/2 provides that in such a case the time limits begin to run from the finality of the annulment ruling. This special starting point should not be confused with the one-year learning period for the annulment action, or with the finality of the decision opening the will. (1)

How Is the Statutory Division Determined?

In statutory succession, the existence of a surviving spouse, descendants, other classes of heirs, adoptive relationships and other circumstances affecting succession are important. Shares of inheritance are not the same in every family. Debts of the estate and the claims arising from the spouse's matrimonial property regime must not be confused with the calculation of inheritance shares. Annulment of a will does not extinguish the debts of the estate. (TMK Art. 495–501, 599; 1)

Hypothetical example: Suppose the decedent is survived by a spouse and two children; that there is no other valid mortis causa disposition; and that a full annulment ruling has been made producing effects for all persons with rights. If, after deducting debts and separate claims, the net estate to be divided is 800,000 Turkish lira (TL), then the spouse's one-quarter share is 200,000 TL, and each child's three-eighths share is 300,000 TL. This example does not include sale costs or tax calculations. The absence of a spouse, the prior death of a child, or an annulment producing effects for only one claimant would change the calculation.

After annulment, the certificate of inheritance must be brought into line with the new legal position, the property records must be examined and, where necessary, the division transactions must be carried out. The annulment ruling is not itself a distribution schedule that completes all these steps automatically.

How Does an Annulment Ruling Affect Other Heirs and Land Registry Records?

Does an Heir Who Did Not Sue Also Benefit?

An annulment ruling is accepted, as a rule, to have effect between the parties. For this reason, a claim won by one heir does not remove the time limit or the need for an application by the other heirs. Correctly identifying the claimant and defendant side is the foundation of the division to be carried out after the decision.

The Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), in its decision of September 22, 2010, E. 2010/3-392, K. 2010/417, separately considered the application of the will to heirs who were not parties to an earlier annulment action. Finding that the general wording of the annulment ruling did not have broad effect on everyone who did not join the action, the court quashed the resistance decision. This decision makes concrete why the bare statement "the will has been annulled" is not sufficient for the purposes of division. (12)

Whether this principle applies in the same way to every kind of mortis causa disposition is debated in academic literature. In particular, where a person is appointed to carry out the will, or where arrangements cannot be divided, the effect of the ruling on third parties may have different features. The study by Yelmen addresses both the general acceptance of relative effect and the exception discussions that arise according to the content of the disposition. For the reader, the conclusion is not to assume either that all heirs automatically benefit or that no exception exists. (Yelmen, in particular pp. 74–79, 94–96; 10)

Is the Land Registry Entry Deleted Automatically?

A provision annulling a will does not in every case automatically delete all entries in the land registry. A bequest of a specific property gives the beneficiary, as a rule, a right to demand performance against the person charged under the will; appointment as heir is subject to a different acquisition regime. This distinction requires examination of the name in which the property was registered and by what transaction. (TMK Art. 599–600; 1)

Where the property has previously been registered in the name of the beneficiary, depending on the legal protection sought, an action for cancellation and re-registration of title, or another action for restitution, may need to be properly brought. Where bank money has been paid or movable property has been delivered, the basis and time limit of a claim for recovery are assessed separately. The person in whose hands the property is held, whether that person is a party to the action, and the scope of the earlier judgment are decisive. (TMK Art. 637 et seq., 1025; 1)

Where there has been a transfer to a third party, the principles of reliance on the land registry and good faith become particularly important. Under TMK Art. 1023–1024, winning an annulment action does not guarantee that the property will be recovered from a third party in every case. The register, the chain of transactions, the record of any action or interim measure, and the third party's knowledge must be investigated concretely. This risk also explains why a proportionate interim protection request at the start of the action is important.

What Happens If the Action Is Dismissed, and How Can the Decision Be Challenged?

A dismissal indicates that the annulment protection sought in that action was not obtained. It cannot be said that property acquired under a will must necessarily be returned because the action was dismissed. A decision based on failure to prove the ground for annulment, on the lapse of a forfeiture period, or on a procedural deficiency does not rest on the same reasoning. Whether a later application is possible depends on the ground of dismissal and the binding effect of the decision. (HMK Art. 114–115, 303; 2)

Where a final judgment has been reached, the same claim between the same parties on the same cause of action may not be reheard merely by changing its heading. On the other hand, after dismissal on procedural grounds, remedying the deficiency or seeking a different legal protection may be subject to different conditions. In none of these cases is the time-limit problem automatically resolved.

The fact that annulment has been refused does not establish abatement by itself. Where abatement has been properly raised, it is examined on its own conditions; where it has not been raised, its separate right of action and time limit must be assessed. A continuing defence is meaningful only in the context of a defence against a demand for performance. For the objections available to heirs where a foundation has been established by will, see the article on establishing a foundation by will.

An appeal against a first-instance decision is subject to a general period of two weeks from proper service. The general period for an appeal on points of law against regional court of appeal decisions open to appeal is also two weeks. Whether a route of challenge is open is checked together with the nature of the decision and the claims, the finality rules that apply and the transitional provisions. It should also be borne in mind that the legal date of electronic service and the moment when the document is seen on screen may not always coincide. (HMK Art. 345, 361; 2)

How Are Court Fees, Costs and Attorney's Fees Assessed?

For an action that seeks only the annulment of the will, without any claim for performance such as transfer or return of property, the fixed fee (maktu harç) is the rule. Where there is an alternative claim for abatement, an ad valorem fee (nispi harç) also becomes relevant for that claim. The addition of claims for cancellation and re-registration of title or other property claims also changes the fee assessment. For this reason, the high value of the estate does not on its own make every independent annulment action subject to an ad valorem fee. The General Assembly's decision of April 29, 2026 clearly sets out this distinction. (8)

Notification, expert, on-site examination, translation and document-retrieval costs vary according to the needs of the file. The attorney's fee awarded at the end of the proceedings against the other party differs from the fee agreed between the person and his or her own lawyer. The Court of Cassation's decision of November 26, 2025 also upheld the assessment of a fixed attorney's fee in a dispute where only an annulment claim existed. (7)

Stating a definite total of costs without seeing the current tariffs and the scope of the claim would be misleading. The imposition of litigation costs depends on the outcome of the case and the relevant exceptions; for legal aid, the ability to pay and the statutory conditions are examined. For the same reason, no firm commitment of one month or one year can be given for the duration of the action independently of the file. (HMK Art. 323, 326, 334 et seq.; 2)

How Is a Will Made Abroad Examined?

A will made in a foreign country cannot be considered invalid merely because it was not drawn up by a Turkish notary. The law applicable and the international jurisdiction of Turkish courts are separate questions. Under the Law on Private International and Procedural Law No. 5718 (MÖHUK) Art. 20, the applicable law for succession, the immovable property located in Türkiye, the form and the capacity to make a will create different connecting factors. As regards capacity, the national law at the time the disposition was made is also of particular importance. (4)

As regards form, in cases falling within its scope the Hague Convention of 1961 on the Law Applicable to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions is also taken into account. The convention, which entered into force for Türkiye on October 22, 1983, should not be applied by reference to TMK Art. 538 alone, without assessing its alternative connecting factors and Türkiye's reservations. Formal validity does not mean that all questions of material validity and reserved portions have been resolved. (11)

Under MÖHUK Art. 43, succession actions are heard by the court of the deceased's last place of residence in Türkiye; where the last place of residence was not in Türkiye, by the court of the place where the property forming part of the estate is located. Where there is a foreign court decision, the need for recognition or enforcement is examined separately. An apostille or certification concerns the source of the document; it does not by itself make the content of the will or the shares of inheritance valid. Accordingly, a copy of the foreign document, a translation, and citizenship and residence information should be prepared together. (4)

Which Documents Should Be Prepared Before the Action?

The initial review should begin with documents sufficient to calculate the time limit and to frame the correct claim. Attempting to gather all the evidence should not be used as a reason to let the time limit for bringing the action expire. Depending on the needs of the file, the following documents may be prepared:

• All pages and annexes of the will, and any earlier wills and revocation documents, if any.

• Death and inheritance details, the certificate of inheritance, and any representation or guardianship documents.

• The file number of the opening proceedings, hearing minutes, service documents and records of finality.

• For each ground for annulment, a separate date of learning and a document supporting that date.

• Health records from the period of the act, the institution holding the evidence, and events directly observed by witnesses.

• Information on immovable property, bank accounts and other estate assets relevant to the dispute; known records of transfers and payments.

• Separate assessment of claims for annulment, abatement, restitution and interim protection.

Original documents should not be annotated, erased or marked; a working copy should be used. One heir's knowledge of a date or event should not be recorded as though it were known to all the others. Where the death or the drawing up of the will is in the distant past, the provisions on entry into force and transition should be checked separately. In particular, for succession and the transfer of the estate, the law in force on the date of death applies; the 2020 decisions also refer to Article 17 of Law No. 4722. (5)

For general information on types of wills and the drawing-up process, the article What Is a Will? may also be read. General information does not replace the examination of a concrete will and the court file.

For details, see our article on annulment of title for incapacity.

Conclusion

What is decisive in annulling a will is not dissatisfaction with the division of the estate, but the presentation of a lawful ground for annulment with the correct claim and evidence. Infringement of the reserved portion gives rise to abatement; defects of capacity, intent, content or form in the drawing up give rise to annulment. This distinction directly affects the time limit for bringing the action, the burden of proof and the result that can be obtained.

After an annulment ruling, to whom the estate passes is determined by examining the parties to the ruling and its scope, partial or full annulment, the other valid wills and statutory succession together. Correction of the land registry, return of the property and division may require further steps. The first step is to establish the learning dates from the opening and service documents, and then to frame the claims for annulment, abatement and return of the property so that they fit together. Protecting an inheritance right depends on raising the correct ground against the correct persons, at the correct time.

For related aspects of the subject, you may also see our article on appointment of a substitute heir and accruing heir.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Will Drawn Up Before a Notary Be Annulled?

Yes. The fact that it was drawn up before a notary does not remove the grounds for annulment under TMK Art. 557. Capacity, intent, content and the official procedure are examined on concrete evidence. The existence of a medical report does not make every objection ineffective. The details are set out in the section on grounds for annulment.

If I Do Not Object to a Will Within One Month, Do I Lose My Right to Sue?

No. The one-month period under TMK Art. 598 relates to the procedure for a document of an appointed heir or legatee. The separate periods under TMK Art. 559 apply to an annulment action. Nevertheless, one should not wait on the assumption that service or an opening hearing will show knowledge. See the time limits table.

Can the Time Limit Start Before the Opening Decision Becomes Final?

Yes. For the one-year period, the learning of the disposition, the ground for annulment and the right holder's status is the basis. Waiting for the opening decision to become final does not preserve the time limit in every case. Decisions on the learning period explain this distinction.

Is the Decedent's Old Age Enough for Annulment?

No. The capacity at the time of the act is assessed. Age, the course of the illness, medical records and direct observations are examined together; a diagnosis made later does not by itself invalidate an earlier will. See the section on capacity.

Is Leaving a Child Nothing Out of the Estate a Ground for Annulment?

Not by itself. If there is no statutory ground for annulment, it is assessed whether the reserved portions have been infringed and whether the conditions for abatement are met. The statutory share of inheritance and the reserved portion are not the same proportion. The comparison of annulment and abatement shows this distinction.

Must All Heirs Bring the Action Together?

No. An heir with an interest in annulment may bring an action for his or her own right. However, one should not assume that a ruling won by another heir will automatically have a result for oneself as well. The parties and the effect on other heirs should be examined together.

If Ten Years Have Not Passed, Can I Still Miss the One-Year Period?

Yes. The ten- or twenty-year outer limit does not extend a one-year learning period that has already passed. Both periods are checked together. The assessment of good faith affects the outer limit; it does not remove the learning period. See the outer limits section.

Can a House Not Be Sold Once an Annulment Action Is Filed?

An action alone does not create a prohibition on sale. If there is a concrete risk, a proportionate interim injunction in respect of the property may be considered. The court requires legal conditions to be shown for the injunction, establishing the right and the danger. The explanation of interim protection addresses this matter.

If a Will Is Annulled, Does the Earlier Will Apply?

Not automatically in every case. The validity of the earlier document, any revocation of it, and the scope of the annulled provision are examined. If there is no other valid arrangement, statutory succession arises in the area affected by the decision. See the section on earlier wills.

Will the Land Registry Be Transferred to My Name Immediately Upon an Annulment Ruling?

Not always. The current registration, the operative part of the ruling, its parties and whether the property has been transferred to a third party are examined. A claim for cancellation and re-registration of title, or another claim for restitution, may be needed. See the effects on the land registry section.

If the Time Limit for the Action Has Passed, Can No Defence Be Raised Against the Will?

Under TMK Art. 559/2, invalidity may always be raised as a defence against a demand for performance. That defence does not give an unlimited right to bring a separate action to recover property already delivered. The distinction between performance and defence is important.

If the Action Is Dismissed, Is Abatement Automatically Accepted?

No. Where abatement has been claimed, it is examined on its own conditions, with its time limit. The dismissal of annulment alone does not create a right to recover property or a new right of action. See the consequences of dismissal section.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

[1] Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medenî Kanunu), adopted November 22, 2001, Official Gazette December 8, 2001, No. 24607. In particular Art. 6, 13, 19–22, 495–515, 531–544, 557–571, 576, 589–600, 637 et seq. and 1023–1025. UYAP Legislation; text published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.

[2] Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), adopted January 12, 2011, Official Gazette February 4, 2011, No. 27836. In particular Art. 2, 11, 24–33, 111, 119, 137–145, 165, 189–204, 266–282, 303, 323–345, 361, 389–400. UYAP Legislation.

[3] Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), adopted June 7, 2012, Official Gazette June 22, 2012, No. 28331. In particular Art. 1, 16, 18 and 18/B. UYAP Legislation.

[4] Law No. 5718 on Private International and Procedural Law (Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk ve Usul Hukuku Hakkında Kanun), adopted November 27, 2007, Official Gazette December 12, 2007, No. 26728. In particular Art. 1, 7, 20, 43 and 50 et seq. Ministry of Justice text.

Court Decisions

[5] Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 3. Hukuk Dairesi), January 14, 2020, E. 2019/4002, K. 2020/80; the same chamber, October 27, 2020, E. 2020/3118, K. 2020/6145. Distinction between the date of learning and the finality of the opening decision. Full decision texts, Karamercan Hukuk publication.

[6] Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), May 9, 2024, E. 2023/2763, K. 2024/2486. Assessment concerning the medical report, the statutory form and proof of defect of intent. Full decision text, Son Karar publication.

[7] Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), November 26, 2025, E. 2025/604, K. 2025/5043. Time limit for forfeiture, and fixed court fee and attorney's fee in a claim for annulment only. Full decision text, Ara Karar publication.

[8] Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), April 29, 2026, E. 2025/247, K. 2026/282. Determination of an alternative abatement claim alongside annulment; in particular assessment paragraphs 11–16. Full decision text, Ara Karar publication.

[12] Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), September 22, 2010, E. 2010/3-392, K. 2010/417. Effect of a will on heirs who were not parties to the annulment action. Full decision text, Kazancı Hukuk publication.

Academic Sources and International Convention

[9] Arslan, Merve, "Evaluation of the Grounds for Annulment of Mortis Causa Dispositions in Light of Court of Cassation Decisions and Doctrinal Debates" ("Yargıtay Kararları ve Doktrin Tartışmaları Işığında Ölüme Bağlı Tasarrufların İptal Sebeplerinin Değerlendirilmesi"), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal), 2022, 5(2), pp. 693–717. Journal record and full text.

[10] Yelmen, Adem, "Effect of the Action for Annulment of a Mortis Causa Disposition on Interested Persons Not Party to the Action" ("Ölüme Bağlı Tasarrufun İptali Davasının Davada Yer Almayan İlgililer Üzerindeki Etkisi"), Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Faculty of Law Journal), 2022, 26(1), pp. 69–106. DOI: 10.34246/ahbvuhfd.1065799. Journal record and full text.

[11] Convention on the Law Applicable to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions (Vasiyet Tasarruflarının Şekline İlişkin Kanun Uyuşmazlıkları Konusunda Sözleşme), The Hague, October 5, 1961. Ministry of Justice Turkish text; HCCH status table and Türkiye's reservations.