The difference between a limitation period and a preclusive period
A limitation period does not extinguish a debt by itself; it gives the debtor a defense against the claim. Under TBK Art. 161, the judge cannot take limitation into account on his or her own motion. The defense must be raised in the proper manner. The grounds for interruption and suspension provided by law may change the calculation of the period.2
A preclusive period (hak düşürücü süre), by contrast, is the time interval granted for a particular right to be exercised. When the period expires, the result may extend to loss of the right, depending on the nature of the relevant provision; the court may take this into account on its own motion. It cannot be assumed that an act that interrupts a limitation period also interrupts a preclusive period. For this reason, the thought "I sent a notice, all periods started over" is especially risky.
The period for filing an action and the period for submitting evidence are not the same
More than one calendar runs at the same time in a dispute. While the substantive-law period for reclaiming the title is still running, the time for the response petition, for notifying evidence, for objecting to the expert report or for requesting enforcement of an interim injunction may expire. The absence of a period under substantive law does not make the strict periods in the proceedings ineffective.4
For example, in a claim based on simulation by the deceased (muris muvazaası), the absence of a general limitation debate does not mean that the claimant can submit evidence at any stage he or she wishes. Similarly, even if a receivable has not yet become time-barred, an injunction obtained before filing the action may lapse if its supplementary steps are not taken in time.
A table of periods by legal ground in title deed actions
The table below is meant to establish the first distinction. If the same event involves more than one legal relationship, each claim must be assessed separately. In particular, for older transactions, the transitional provisions and the rules in force on the date of the transaction are checked separately.
| Legal ground or claim | Period and starting point | Critical distinction |
|---|---|---|
| Correction of a wrongful registration based on a real right | As a rule, there is no general limitation period for the action. | The acquisition by a good-faith third party, acquisitive prescription and special preclusive provisions are examined separately. |
| Simulation by the deceased (muris muvazaası) | A title claim based on simulation, where its conditions exist, is as a rule not subject to a limitation period. | Not confused with the periods for an action for abatement (tenkis); causes predating the cadastre are assessed separately. |
| Mistake or fraud | TBK Art. 39: notice that one is not bound by the contract, or a demand for return of what was given, must be made within one year of learning. | The one year does not start from the contract date in every case; the date of learning must be proved. |
| Duress | TBK Art. 39: one year from the date the effect of the duress ceases. | The day of the act of duress and the day its effect ended may differ. |
| Excessive advantage-taking | TBK Art. 28: one year from learning or from the end of the situation of hardship; in any event five years from the contract. | A low sale price alone is not sufficient; the conditions of taking advantage of a personal situation are also required. |
| Legal cause predating the cadastre | Law No. 3402 Art. 12/3: ten years from the finalization of the record. | It is not a general ten-year period valid for every transaction in the title register. |
| Statutory pre-emption | TMK Art. 733: three months from the notarial notification, and the applicable upper limit from the sale. | For sales on or after December 25, 2025 the upper limit is one year; for earlier sales the earlier rule is examined under the transitional provision. |
| Abatement (tenkis) | TMK Art. 571: one year from learning that the reserved portion has been infringed; also a ten-year upper limit. | The upper limit is calculated from the opening of the will for wills, and from the opening of the succession for other dispositions. |
| Personal claim based on a promise to sell or a fiduciary relationship | Absent special circumstances, the ten-year general period under TBK Art. 146 comes into play. | The starting point depends on the due date; delivery, the return condition and the nature of the relationship matter. |
| Monetary receivable arising from a mandate contract | Five years for receivables within TBK Art. 147/5. | An account or fee claim against the agent is not the same as a real claim against the current owner. |
| Tort compensation | TBK Art. 72: two years from learning of the damage and the person liable; as a rule ten years from the act. | A longer criminal limitation period, where applicable, is assessed separately. |
| Return of unjust enrichment | TBK Art. 82: two years from learning of the right to reclaim; in any event ten years from the enrichment. | It does not have the same period regime as a valid contractual receivable. |
The bases of the table are TMK Arts. 571, 712, 733, 1023–1025; TBK Arts. 28, 39, 72, 82, 146–149 and Law No. 3402 Art. 12. The framework of simulation by the deceased, as to the type of action, is explained in the unification-of-case-law decision of April 1, 1974.1236
When is the saying "a title action has no time limit" misleading?
Not applying a general receivable limitation period to a request to correct a wrongful registration based on a real right does not mean the immovable can be recovered under all conditions. A claimant who was right at the outset may meet a legal situation that arises later. The acquisition by a third party protected under TMK Art. 1023 is the principal example. The periods in special statutes and the conditions of acquisitive prescription are also examined.1
Is the ten years in TMK Art. 712 a period for filing an action?
TMK Art. 712 regulates a person's acquisition of ownership, under certain conditions, when registered as owner without a valid legal ground. Appearing as owner in the register, good faith and holding possession of the immovable for ten years without challenge and without interruption are assessed together. The mere passage of ten years from the date of the title is not enough.1
This provision is different from the ten-year preclusive period running from the finalization of the cadastral record. In one, the substantive conditions of acquiring ownership are discussed; in the other, the period for claims that may be raised on a cause predating the cadastre. Whenever the phrase "ten years" appears in a file, it must be stated clearly which provision is being applied.
The twenty years for an unregistered immovable is a different matter
The extraordinary acquisitive prescription in TMK Art. 713 is also not an ordinary period for a title cancellation action. Whether the immovable is unregistered or falls within the registration situations listed in the law, possession as owner and the other conditions are investigated together. Explanations taken from old texts that treat the death of the registered owner as sufficient on its own should not be used without comparing them with the current provision.1
How does the one-year period start in fraud, mistake and duress?
Under TBK Art. 39, learning is not always the same as knowing that the transaction was made. A person may know that he or she transferred the immovable and later learn that an important fact disclosed to him or her was untrue. By contrast, for a person who knew all the decisive information earlier, tying the starting point merely to a new meeting with a lawyer may not be sufficient.2
To make the starting event concrete, correspondence, delivered documents, the first objection, bank records, the direct knowledge of witnesses and the other party's statements are assessed together. Instead of a vague account such as "I found out last year," it should be shown which fact was learned through which document or event.
The distinction between notice, action and compensation claim
The law regulates giving notice within one year that one is not bound by the contract, or demanding return of what was given. For this reason, the provision cannot be reduced to the sentence "an action must be filed within one year." The content of the notice made, its receipt and which right was exercised matter. However, it should not be assumed that the notice resolves all the problems of later title, return and compensation claims.2
Under TBK Art. 39/2, the ratification of a contract that is not binding because of fraud or duress does not by itself remove the right to compensation. The conditions, proof and limitation period of this second claim are examined separately. The inability to recover the title and the end of every kind of monetary claim are not the same result.
How are the thirty days and the ten years separated in the cadastre?
The thirty-day period for filing an action during the display of cadastral records is not the same as the ten-year period after the determination becomes final. Different stages are regulated in Law No. 3402 Arts. 11 and 12. The thirty-day display period matters for applying to the cadastral court proceedings; the ten-year period matters for claims raised against a finalized record on a legal cause predating the cadastre.3
The first step in a file is to establish the cadastral determination and finalization dates from official documents. Mistaking the date of a later sale for the cadastral finalization date, or taking the date in the current title document as the starting point, leads to a wrong result. If the event on which the claim is based took place after the cadastre, the applicability of Art. 12/3 is discussed separately.
The Constitutional Court's Ayşe Türk and Others decision
In its decision of April 21, 2021, Application No. 2018/1906, Ayşe Türk and Others, the Constitutional Court (AYM) assessed the ten-year period in the context of an action filed on February 22, 2016, after a cadastral determination that became final on September 22, 1994. The decision found this complaint, from the standpoint of the right of access to a court, manifestly ill-founded and declared it inadmissible.7
The applicants' arguments on possession and a promise to sell did not automatically remove the preclusive period attached to a legal cause predating the cadastre. Paragraphs 29–31 of the decision are important in showing that limiting a limitation defense in a contractual claim by the rule of good faith cannot be treated as the same as the preclusive period specific to the cadastre. This decision cannot be read as saying that all rejections on the ground of time are rights violations.
The December 25, 2025 amendment to the pre-emption period
With Law No. 7571, the two-year upper limit from the sale in TMK Art. 733 was reduced to one year. The amendment entered into force on December 25, 2025. TMK transitional Art. 1 states that this new rule will not apply to sales that took place before it entered into force. The three-month period from notification through a notary has been retained.18
Two separate checks for old and new sales
Hypothetically, a sale dated December 20, 2025 and a sale dated January 10, 2026 should not be treated as subject to the same upper limit. For the first, under the transitional provision, the two-year upper limit of the earlier rule is considered; for the second, the new one-year upper limit. If notarial notification was made in both cases, the three-month period is calculated separately, and the applicable period that expired earlier is decisive.
These examples explain only the transitional logic. In finding the last day in a calendar, the form of the notification, the date of service and the rules on calculating periods should also be checked. The information "I learned of the sale from a relative" should not be equated with the notarial notification that the law requires.
A change in the period and a change in the price are not subject to the same transitional rule
The same law also amended the provision on the pre-emption price in TMK Art. 734. The current provision regulates the judge's determining the market value without delay, the deposit in cash within a strict time limit of the determined price and the title-registration costs falling on the buyer, and the interest-bearing investment of the price. The transitional article applies the amendment to Art. 734 to pending cases as well.18
Therefore the result "the sale is dated earlier, all the old provisions apply" is not correct. The transition for the period and the transition for the price must be examined separately. General explanations to the effect that the old sale price is, in every file, the amount to be deposited directly should be updated.
The starting point in fiduciary transactions, promises to sell and mandate receivables
Under TBK Art. 149, the limitation period starts when the receivable becomes due. Where the maturity of a debt depends on a notice, the starting point is not left wholly to the creditor's unlimited choice; the day on which notice could be given is taken into account. Therefore the claim "I did not ask for return, so the period never started" is not valid in every case.2
In a fiduciary transaction, the condition for giving back may be the closing of a particular debt or an agreed event. In a promise to sell, the point at which performance can be demanded, the content of the contract and the legal status of the immovable are important. Delivery and continuing possession may also play a role in assessing a limitation defense under the rule of good faith. This discussion does not mean an automatic extension of the special preclusive period specific to the cadastre.7
In a case of abuse of a power of attorney, two claims must be separated: the title claim directed at the current owner and the claim for accounting or payment directed at the agent. For the second claim, the five-year rule in TBK Art. 147/5 may come into play. For a detailed breakdown of the case, see the review on cancellation of title and re-registration due to abuse of a power of attorney.
What act suspends or interrupts the period?
Sending a notice is not a safe solution by itself
TBK Art. 154 regulates grounds for interruption such as acknowledgment of the debt, applying to a court or arbitrator by action or defense, enforcement proceedings and filing a claim in the bankruptcy estate. A notarial notice is not, by itself, a ground for interrupting a general limitation period. It is possible for a notice to produce other effects with respect to default or the exercise of a particular right.2
A complaint filed with the prosecutor's office also does not automatically suspend all private-law periods. While a criminal investigation is under way, a separate period analysis must be carried out for the title and receivable claims. Which right is protected by an application directed at the wrong person or not containing the claim sufficiently is also assessed separately.
In mediation, the application and the starting date matter
In mandatory mediation (dava şartı arabuluculuk), from the application to the office until the final record is drawn up, the limitation period is suspended and the preclusive period does not run. This does not mean that the time that passed before is erased and the period starts anew. In voluntary mediation, the start of the process is determined by the conditions of Law No. 6325 Art. 16; not every unilateral application produces the same result.5
The fact that disputes over the transfer of immovables are suitable for mediation does not mean that mediation is mandatory in all title cancellation actions. The type of action and the special statute must be checked. Where mandatory mediation is concerned, the provision of Art. 18/A/16 on the period for filing the main action after a pre-action injunction is also important.
Short time limits that must not be missed in injunctions and proceedings
| Step | Basic period | Starting point or condition |
|---|---|---|
| Requesting enforcement of an interim injunction | One week | HMK Art. 393: from the pronouncement or service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction. |
| Filing the main action after a pre-action injunction | Two weeks | HMK Art. 397: from the date of requesting enforcement of the injunction; there is also an obligation to submit the document showing that the action was filed to the relevant file. |
| Objection to an injunction issued without hearing the other party | One week | According to the distinction in HMK Art. 394 among presence, enforcement and service of the record. |
| Objection to the expert report | Two weeks | HMK Art. 281: from service of the report; an additional period may be considered under the conditions in the law. |
This table does not include all service, appeal and strict periods. In particular, in electronic service, the date on which service is legally deemed made and the date on which the notification was actually opened may not be the same. The official service records of the file should be used as the basis; periods should not be calculated by the estimated date of an SMS or e-mail.49
Which documents are needed for a period review?
A sound chronology is built by writing the first acquisition, later transfers, cadastral finalization, the contract, learning, due date, notice and application dates on separate lines. Besides the current title record, the chain-of-title record (tedavüllü kayıt), the cadastral record, the notary service documents, the contract and bank documents should be collected.
The basis should also be added next to each date. The witness for the claim "he learned at a family gathering" and the document for the fact "the notarial notice was served" are different. Correspondence that could support the other side's claim of earlier learning or maturity should also be included in the assessment. A calendar prepared only with documents favorable to oneself may not be sufficient to meet a time defense in the proceedings.
Conclusion
In an action for cancellation of title and re-registration, the calculation of the period cannot be made from the name of the action. First the legal ground and the claim must be determined; then the starting event, the special provision, the transitional provision and any grounds of suspension or interruption should be examined. The title claim and the monetary claim, and the substantive-law period and the procedural period, should be assessed separately. The general explanations here do not take the place of a review based on the transaction and service dates of the specific file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a title cancellation action be filed after ten years have passed?
On some legal grounds it can; on some claims there is a special preclusive period bar. A claim based on a cause predating the cadastre, the correction of a real right and a contractual receivable are not subject to the same ten-year rule.
Are simulation by the deceased and abatement subject to the same period?
No. A simulation-by-the-deceased claim whose conditions exist is as a rule not subject to the general limitation period. In abatement, the one-year and ten-year periods in TMK Art. 571 are examined. The distinction on abatement and the reserved portion is important for this reason.
When does the one-year period begin if I learn of the fraud years later?
Under TBK Art. 39, the date the deception is learned matters. Which concrete event the learning occurred through must be proved. The periods for other claims are checked separately.
Does a notarial notice interrupt all periods?
No. A notice may produce consequences with respect to the exercise of a particular right or default; by itself it does not interrupt all limitation and preclusive periods.
Do I have two years for pre-emption in 2026?
The date of sale is decisive. For sales on or after December 25, 2025, the new one-year upper limit applies. For earlier sales, the earlier rule is considered because of the transitional provision. The three-month period tied to the notarial notification is also checked.
Can I put the civil action on hold while a criminal investigation is under way?
Waiting may cause loss of rights as regards time. A criminal complaint does not automatically protect all civil-action periods; the title and compensation claims must be examined separately.
Does mediation restart the whole period?
As a rule there is a suspension or non-running of the period; the time that has already passed is not erased. The starting conditions differ between mandatory mediation and voluntary mediation.
If the immovable is still in my use, does no period run?
No. Possession matters in some contractual disputes, but it does not remove all special periods. The preclusive period concerning the cadastre in particular must be assessed separately.
Sources
1. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, in particular Arts. 2, 571, 712–713, 733–734, transitional Art. 1, 1023–1025.
2. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Arts. 28, 39, 72, 82, 146–149, 154, 161.
3. Cadastre Law No. 3402, Arts. 11–12.
4. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Arts. 90–95, 281, 393–394, 397.
5. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 16, 17/B, 18/A and 18/B.
7. Constitutional Court, Ayşe Türk and Others, Application No. 2018/1906, 21.4.2021, in particular §§ 26–37.
8. Law No. 7571, Arts. 35–37; Official Gazette, 25.12.2025, No. 33118.
9. Law No. 7201 on Notification, Art. 7/a.