The basic question of this article is who is protected when, after an invalid transaction, the property or a mortgage passes to another person. Examining only the first sale is not enough. The legal basis, the date and the parties' knowledge for each acquisition must be assessed separately.
What is a wrongful registration?
Under TMK Article 1024, a registration that rests on a non-binding legal transaction or that lacks a legal ground is wrongful. In this case, a person's appearing as owner in the register is distinguished from actually having acquired the property right. TMK Article 1025 gives the person whose real right has been impaired the possibility of suing for correction of the register, while reserving the acquisitions of good-faith third parties and claims for damages. 1
A transfer with a forged signature, a transaction made without valid power of representation, a disposition by a person without the capacity to discern, or a disguised gift presented as a sale may give rise to a registry problem for different reasons. By contrast, the later non-payment of the price in a valid sale is not, by itself, a general ground that makes the entry wrongful. The consequences of a breach of obligation and the validity of the registration are assessed separately. 1 2
The wrongfulness may exist from the outset, or it may arise from the debate over the later disappearance of the legal ground. In particular, in construction contracts in return for a land share, the effect of termination or withdrawal on earlier registrations brings the question of protecting third parties to the fore.
Under what conditions does protection under TMK Article 1023 arise?
A real right must have been acquired by relying on the register entry
The protection concerns acquiring ownership or another real right by relying on the registration in the land register. Besides ownership, limited real rights such as a mortgage may also be within its scope. Merely paying earnest money, signing a promise to sell or taking delivery of the keys is not the same as acquiring a real right within the meaning of Article 1023. 1
For this reason, the contractual claim to registration of a person who has not yet obtained the title should not be confused with the protection of a person who has become owner in the register against the invalidity of an earlier transaction. In the first group, the seller's obligation to transfer, the form of the contract, the performance of the obligations and, where necessary, the annotation are examined. In the second group, the conditions of reliance on the register are decisive.
The person must be in the position of a third party in relation to the registration to be protected
A party to the first invalid transaction cannot, in every case, cure a defect in their own transaction merely by saying "I relied on the land registry." For example, if a property correctly registered in A's name has been transferred to B by a forged power of attorney in which A did not take part, the problem is not that B relied on the entry of a seller who is not the owner in the register; it is the invalidity of the act of representation made in A's name. B's position is therefore not examined in the same way as that of a later buyer, C.
If C acquired a right through a valid transaction by relying on the entry made in B's name, an assessment under Article 1023 may come into play. However, C's own acquisition transaction must also be valid. Reliance on the register is not a tool that generally cures a defect of form or intent in the third party's own contract. 1 2
Good faith is assessed together with the required care
TMK Article 3 takes good faith as the basis in cases where the law attaches consequences to it. However, a person who has not shown the care required by the situation cannot claim good faith. An explanation of "I did not know" is therefore not sufficient by itself; whether the person ought to have known is also examined in the concrete case. 1
The openness of the land register is also part of this assessment. A person who makes their interest credible can examine the relevant page and documents; the possibility of claiming not to know of an entry in the land register is limited. On the other hand, an obligation to investigate every fact concealed outside the register cannot be imposed on all buyers to the same extent. Professional position, the characteristics of the transaction and visible signs of suspicion matter.
Why are the first buyer and the later owner examined separately?
| Situation in the chain of transfers | Issue to be examined | Effect on the outcome |
|---|---|---|
| First transfer with a forged document in the owner's name | Is there genuine intent and power of representation? | The defect in the first buyer's own transaction is assessed |
| Transfer after the holder of the wrongful entry | Is the third party who relied on the register in good faith? | Protection under TMK Article 1023 may be possible |
| Abuse of a valid power of attorney | Does the buyer know, or ought the buyer to know, of the abuse? | An assessment specific to the representation relationship is required |
| Mortgage on a wrongful entry | Was the mortgagee in good faith when acquiring the real right? | Ownership and the mortgage may lead to different results |
| Passing by inheritance | To what extent does the decedent's right exist? | Universal succession is not the same as acquisition by relying on the register through an independent transaction |
Hypothetical example: A's property has been transferred by a forged transaction to B, and from B to C for a genuine price. When A proves that the first transaction was forged, A has undermined the basis of the entry made in B's name. But whether C is a protected third party must be answered separately. If it is proven that C acted together with B, knew of the forgery or ignored concrete suspicions, the assessment changes.
In the same example, if C has genuinely acquired ownership, it is no longer sufficient, for later transfers, to take the approach that "the earlier forged transaction always produces the same result." The stage at which the register merges with the true state of rights and the validity of the later transactions themselves must be examined. 1
The difference between abuse of a power of attorney and a forged power of attorney
Acting in breach of the duty of loyalty within a valid power-of-attorney relationship is different from having no power of representation at all. If the person transacting with the agent does not know of the abuse and, despite showing the care expected of them, is not in a position to know, the transaction may bind the principal; the agent's liability in the internal relationship continues. A person who acts in collusion with the agent for gain cannot rely on this protection. 1 2
This distinction also changes the plan for proof. In a claim of a forged document, the original document, the signature, the notary and the land registry transaction file come to the fore. In abuse, the reality of the sale price, whether the price reached the principal, the relationship between the agent and the buyer and the knowledge of the conflict with the principal's interest matter. The mere breadth of the text of a power of attorney does not end the inquiry.
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated October 25, 2023, E. 2022/859, K. 2023/990, also shows a procedural risk in this field. The majority accepted that the concrete action was limited to the claim of incapacity and found it appropriate not to examine abuse claims raised later. The dissent argued that the initial account also covered this ground. The decision shows not that there is a single substantive result in all power-of-attorney disputes, but the importance of framing the claim on time and clearly. 4
As of what date is good faith required?
The situation at the moment the real right is acquired is central to the protection. The reasoning of the unification of case law decision dated May 16, 2025 explains that good faith must exist at the time the registration request is entered in the daily register (yevmiye defteri). For this reason, the dates of contract negotiations, payment, the registration request and actual delivery should not be treated as a single date. 5
A dispute learned of after the acquisition does not by itself undo an acquisition that had earlier taken place in accordance with the conditions. By contrast, an action or an annotation in the register learned of during the sale negotiations may reveal the knowledge at the time of acquisition. Messages, notices, earlier disputes and access to documents are assessed in light of this timing.
Two generalizations, "the action was filed later, so the buyer is in good faith" and "the action was filed earlier, so the buyer is definitely in bad faith," are likewise inadequate. How knowledge of the action reached the person, when it was entered in the register and the scope of the decision must be made concrete.
By what evidence can bad faith be shown?
Facts assessed together
A price markedly below the market, the absence of a payment trail, transfers at short intervals, a close relationship between the parties, acting within the same economic structure, express objections by the person using the property, or notices sent before the transaction may contribute to the good-faith assessment. None of them gives a conclusive result alone in all cases. 1 5
For example, kinship may combine with other strong facts showing that the person knew of the dispute; but it is not right to treat every buyer as being in bad faith merely because of kinship. Similarly, a seemingly low land registry price should not be made the sole criterion without investigating the actual payment and market conditions. The official price, the actual payment and the value determined by the expert may be different data.
As far as possible, the plaintiff should present not the conclusion "the buyer knew" but the events that show it: which meeting did they attend, which letter did they receive, with which person did they negotiate together, who did they see using the property before the transfer? General witness accounts in which a date and a person cannot be connected may remain weak.
How is the buyer's strong defense assessed?
The buyer may argue that the price was paid through a bank, that ordinary bargaining took place, that there was no warning entry in the register, that the property was actually inspected and that they had no knowledge of the dispute. These should be taken seriously. The plaintiff's proving the invalidity of the first transfer does not in every case remove the burden of separately proving the later buyer's bad faith.
The investigative means of a bank or of a professional party to the transaction may differ from those of an ordinary buyer. However, no rule can be established that every bank mortgage is automatically valid or that every bank will necessarily be treated as being in bad faith. The concrete transaction file and the conditions of acquisition are examined.
What changed in 2025 for titles obtained from contractors?
The decision of the Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu) dated May 16, 2025, E. 2024/1, K. 2025/2, addressed the case where a property transferred by the landowner to the contractor is later sold or mortgaged to third parties. The invalidity of the construction contract, or its retroactive termination, does not at the outset preclude hearing the third party's claim of good faith. Whether ownership or the mortgage is protected depends, in the concrete case, on the conditions of reliance on the register. 5
Excluding the third party's good-faith defense in every case on account of the former "advance title" (avans tapu) approach can no longer be maintained in disputes within the scope of this decision. The decision also does not say that the titles of all buyers will be protected if the construction is not completed. If bad faith is shown, the property may return to the landowner.
For the landowner, this change means that merely showing that the contract has been terminated may not suffice. For the buyer, preserving the records of title acquisition, payment and investigation becomes important. The case of a buyer who has not acquired the title at all and relies only on a personal right bought from the contractor is a separate inquiry; the decision's protection cannot be generalized to every sale without a title.
How do a mortgage, an annotation of pending litigation and an interim injunction affect the outcome?
The ownership entry and the mortgage right are separate real rights. When cancellation of the registration in an owner's name is sought, the right of the bank or another mortgagee is not automatically disregarded. If removal of the mortgage is sought, the creditor's position as a party, its reliance on the register and the basis of the request must be established separately. 1 5
Annotations relating to the protection of disputed rights under TMK Article 1010 matter for whether they can be asserted against rights acquired later. In practice, however, a "defendant" entry and an injunction containing an express ban on transfer do not have the same effect. The basis of the particular annotation and the operative part of the court decision must be examined. 1 3
If the aim is to prevent transfer of the property during the action, an appropriate injunction should be requested under Article 389 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). Being content with the mere filing of the action may create additional problems as to later acquisitions and proof. The injunction should include the proportionate scope of the protection and the steps for its implementation.
Against whom is the action brought, and what outcomes are sought?
A request to change the register is directed against the current right holder. The presence of earlier persons in the chain of transfers does not make all of them necessary defendants of the same request. Claims for price and damages against the former owner or the agent are determined separately. In a claim aimed at the mortgage, the mortgagee's right is also taken into account.
Instead of the petition merely saying "the transactions are simulated," the ground of wrongfulness of the first registration and the reason later acquisitions are not protected should be set apart. The concrete events should be tied to the duty of knowledge and care in respect of each defendant. A duly presented account of material facts comes before the judge's legal characterization. 3 4
If the title cannot be recovered, monetary claims against the responsible person based on contract, tort, unjust enrichment or the power-of-attorney relationship may be considered. The State's liability under TMK Article 1007 is also a separate route subject to its own conditions. Protection of the good-faith owner does not mean that the owner must necessarily pay the value of the property to the former right holder. 1 2
The order of examination in a land title dispute
- The current owner, share, mortgages and annotations are identified.
- All transfers from the first disputed transaction to the present are placed in chronological order.
- The ground of invalidity, or the obligation to transfer, is determined separately for each transaction.
- The knowledge and care of later right holders at the date of acquisition are investigated.
- The evidence is matched with the person who issued the document, the addressee and the date.
- Cancellation, registration, removal of the mortgage and monetary claims are directed at the right persons.
- Appropriate provisional protection against the risk of transfer and the time limit for each claim are checked separately.
This order prevents holding all persons liable on the same ground. The balance between protecting the register and protecting the true right holder must be struck at each link in the chain of transfers. The firm's existing land title actions service page explains the transaction and representation dimensions of this examination.
Conclusion
In a wrongful registration action, the invalidity of the first transaction and the protection of the last owner are two separate questions. If the conditions of reliance on the register are met, it may not be possible to recover the property in kind; if they are not met, later transfers may also be the subject of a cancellation claim. A reliable result cannot be built without examining together the chain of transfers, the moment of acquisition and the concrete evidence of bad faith. These explanations, given as general information, are not a substitute for assessing the concrete transaction file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it always enough to rely on the person who appears as the owner in the land registry?
No. A real right must be validly acquired by relying on the register, and good faith consistent with the required care is needed. A person who ignores visible suspicions may not be protected.
Is the first person to take the property by a forged power of attorney protected?
The first buyer's position differs from that of a later buyer who relied on the wrongful entry. Protection under TMK Article 1023 cannot be accepted without examining the validity of the act of representation.
Is a title bought from a relative necessarily cancelled?
No. Kinship is assessed together with other facts showing knowledge and collusion. On its own, it is not conclusive proof of bad faith in every file.
Does buying the property at the market price make good faith certain?
No. Payment of the real price is an important datum; but whether the buyer knew or ought to have known of the wrongfulness is examined separately.
If the contract is terminated, is the title I bought from a contractor automatically cancelled?
In the situation within the scope of the 2025 unification of case law decision, the good-faith defense must be heard. The result depends on the concrete conditions of the acquisition and the reliance on the register.
If the title is cancelled, does the mortgage also lapse automatically?
Not in every case. The mortgagee's real right and good faith are assessed separately; an appropriate request and arrangement of parties are needed.
Is a person who acquires after an action has been filed necessarily in bad faith?
The mere date of the action is not sufficient in all files. The buyer's knowledge, the annotations in the register and the conditions at the time of acquisition are examined. The special legal effects of an annotation are also reserved.
If the good-faith buyer is protected, from whom do I claim my loss?
A separate liability assessment is made as to the person who caused the damage, the contracting party, the agent or, if the conditions are met, the State. The last owner is not the debtor of every loss merely by being the owner.
Sources and legal bases
1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (4721 sayılı Türk Medenî Kanunu), in particular Art. 2–7, 705–706, 1007, 1010–1011, 1020–1025. Official text.
2. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 (6098 sayılı Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Art. 40–48, 49, 77, 112, 237 and 504–506. Official text.
3. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Art. 25–33, 119, 125, 141, 190, 194 and 389–397. Official text.
4. Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), October 25, 2023, E. 2022/859, K. 2023/990, VI/D/2, VII and the dissenting opinion. Full text of the decision, Mevzuat Merkezi.
5. Grand General Assembly for the Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu), May 16, 2025, E. 2024/1, K. 2025/2, in particular V–VI; Official Gazette (RG) July 18, 2025, No. 32959. Full text of the decision, LEXPERA.