Action for Abatement and Breach of the Reserved Portion: Protecting the Inheritance Right Against Gifts and Wills

The action for abatement (tenkis davası) allows an heir entitled to a reserved portion to obtain the part of the inheritance that the law protects, by reducing the transfers that exceed the limit within which the decedent could dispose of property. The existence of a gift or a will does not, by itself, win the case. First, the applicable law, the heir's status as a reserved-portion heir, the estate's value at the time of death, the value the heir actually received and the time limits are determined. Only then is it examined which transfer must be reduced, and to what extent.

Every dispute expressed as "avoidance of a gift in the estate" or "breach of the reserved portion by a will" does not rest on the same action. An invalid transaction, a sale that is apparent only and is intended to remove assets from heirs, and a gift that is valid but impairs the reserved portion are different legal problems. This article explains the conditions and consequences of abatement through actual Court of Cassation decisions; the calculation examples, however, are entirely hypothetical.

What does the action for abatement protect, and what does it not achieve?

Article 560 of the Turkish Civil Code gives an heir who does not receive the value of the reserved portion the right to demand that the shortfall be made good. The aim of abatement is not to give every heir the full amount of his or her statutory share. The decedent may prefer one of the heirs, or a person outside the family, within the disposable portion of the estate.

For that reason, leaving one child more property than another, poor family relations or the fact that an heir is not named in the will is not sufficient on its own. The plaintiff must show that the reserved portion that is due to him or her is short and that the transfer in dispute is subject to abatement. The defendant may argue that enough value passed to the plaintiff from the remaining estate or from earlier transfers, that the transaction had genuine consideration, or that the time limit has expired. Each defense must be assessed through concrete calculations and documents. TMK Arts. 505–506, 560–571

Abatement reduces the effect of a legally valid disposition to the necessary extent. Invalidity of a will on grounds of lack of capacity or defect of form is a different legal ground. A will that carries no ground for invalidity may still be subject to abatement; and a will that does not impair the reserved portion may be invalid for another reason.

Who are the heirs entitled to a reserved portion?

The difference between the statutory share and the reserved portion

The statutory share shows the proportion of the inheritance when it is distributed under the statutory order of succession. The reserved portion is the part of that proportion that is protected against the decedent's dispositions. The calculation has two stages: first, the class in which the heir is entitled and the other heirs with whom he or she shares the inheritance are determined; then, the part of that statutory share that is protected is identified.

Siblings, nephews and nieces, and grandparents have no reserved portion under the current legislation. A sibling may be a statutory heir; this does not mean that the sibling is entitled to a reserved portion. The amendment that removed the reserved portion of siblings entered into force on May 10, 2007. For inheritances opened earlier, the date of death and the transitional law must be examined separately. TMK Arts. 495–506; Law No. 4722, Art. 17

Where a spouse and two children inherit together, the spouse's statutory share is one quarter and each child's statutory share is three eighths. The spouse's reserved portion is one quarter; each child's reserved portion is three sixteenths. Applying a single "child reserved portion" rate to the whole estate distorts the calculation in any file in which a spouse is present.

Circumstances that affect heirship status

Renunciation of the inheritance, waiver of the inheritance, forfeiture of inheritance rights and valid exclusion from succession may change the plaintiff's position. The fact that an heir's name is not mentioned in a will is not, in itself, an exclusion from valid succession. The ground for exclusion must be stated in the disposition and proved in the dispute; the burden of proof rests on the heir or legatee who benefits from the exclusion. If the ground cannot be proved, the disposition continues to have effect outside the reserved portion, without prejudice to the special exception for mistake provided by law. TMK Arts. 510–512, 528

Which gifts and wills are subject to abatement?

Is a specific intent to remove property also required in a will?

For dispositions mortis causa, the central question is whether the transfer exceeds the limit within which the decedent could dispose of property. For abatement of a will that impairs the reserved portion, it is not necessary to prove a separate intention to harm the heir. The decedent's acting out of goodwill does not remove the reserved-portion calculation. By contrast, for gifts made before death, it must be determined which subparagraph of Article 565 of the Turkish Civil Code applies.

Four separate groups of gifts made before death

Article 565 of the Turkish Civil Code brings the following transfers within the scope of abatement:

• Transfers made on account of a share of the inheritance and for specific family purposes: transfers made on account of a share of the inheritance to a statutory heir who has lost heirship status; transfers of property or release from debt to a descendant, without an obligation to return them; and customary-excess dowries and the capital for establishing a business are each regulated separately in this subparagraph. Not every family payment can be placed in the same category.
• Transfers made to settle inheritance rights before death: the name of the transaction matters less than the inheritance right it settles and the real purpose of the payment.
• Gifts with a reserved right of unilateral revocation and gifts made within the last year before death: customary gifts are an exception. It is not correct to limit gifts with a reserved right of revocation to the last year only.
• Transfers whose clear purpose is to defeat the rules on the reserved portion: for earlier gifts that do not fall within the preceding subparagraphs, this purpose may be decisive. The distribution of the property, the relations between the parties, the time of the transaction, the proportion of the value transferred to the whole, and the other transfers are assessed together.

Accordingly, neither "no action can be brought over a gift older than one year" nor "every old gift necessarily requires proof of an intention to remove property" is correct. First the legal group of the transfer is identified; the subject of proof is determined after that. TMK Art. 565

Care, gratitude and reciprocal contracts

A sale at genuine value, or care that was actually provided in return, is separated from a gratuitous transfer. However, describing a contract as "care" does not end the examination. The scope, duration and economic value of the care, and whether the transaction was in fact a gift, are investigated. Article 615 of the Code of Obligations expressly reserves the heirs' right to seek abatement in a contract for maintenance until death; this provision does not mean that every transfer under a care arrangement is necessarily subject to abatement.

Example of rejection: In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi) dated March 24, 2026, E. 2025/4272, K. 2026/1519, the father's payment for a home acquired in his daughter's name and the daughter's long-term care for him were assessed. The decision of the regional court of appeal rejecting the abatement claim was upheld; in the concrete case, it could not be proved that the purpose was to render the reserved portion ineffective. The decision shows the evidentiary value of a care relationship. However, the mere statement that "there was gratitude" cannot be used as a basis for placing every transfer covered by the other subparagraphs of Article 565 outside its scope. Full text of the decision

Insurance, usufruct and periodic income

In a life insurance policy taken out by the decedent in favor of a third party, the purchase value as of the date of death, as provided by law, is important for the calculation; the total amount paid by the insurance company is not added to the estate indiscriminately. In transfers of usufruct or periodic income, the value converted into capital according to the estimated duration of payments is assessed. Article 568 of the Turkish Civil Code regulates, where the conditions are met, the options of abatement or of discharge of the obligation by surrendering the disposable portion. In these files, the policy, changes of beneficiary and an expert calculation are required. TMK Arts. 509, 567–568 For the relationship between conditions and burdens attached to a will and abatement, the article conditions and burdens in a will may be consulted. The article death benefit under life insurance examines this subject in more detail.

Why must appointment of an heir by will be distinguished from bequest of specific property?

"I leave my entire estate to my son" and "I leave this apartment of mine to my son" do not produce the same result. The distinction between appointment of an heir over the whole estate or a proportion of it, and a bequest of specific property, is made according to the content of the disposition and not merely the words used. The right of choice regarding indivisible property does not apply automatically to every will.

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated January 21, 2026, E. 2025/44, K. 2026/16, the decedent had left all of his property to his two children. The claim for abatement in respect of the other heir's one-sixth share was accepted; the dispute focused on whether the indivisibility and choice procedure in Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code applied. The General Assembly considered it appropriate that this procedure not be applied to a disposition that appoints an heir, and found the decision of disagreement to be correct. The file was sent to the Special Chamber for examination of the other grounds of appeal; for this reason, the decision should not be read as conclusively ending the entire dispute. Full text of the decision

The plaintiff must submit the whole will, not only a single sentence of it; and the defendant must clearly state the defense concerning the legal nature of the disposition. Academic analysis also treats the type of disposition mortis causa and the manner in which abatement applies as separate questions. Turan Başara, 2016, pp. 365–408

How is the estate determined for the abatement calculation?

Assets, debts and the estate for calculation

The starting point is the decedent's property as of the date of death. Alongside immovable property, bank assets, receivables, vehicles and company shares are investigated. The entire property of a company is not recorded directly in a partner's estate; the value of the decedent's share in it is determined.

Under Article 507 of the Turkish Civil Code, debts, funeral expenses, the costs of sealing and inventorying the estate, and three months' living expenses of persons who lived with the decedent and were supported by him or her are deducted. A debt claimed by each family member cannot automatically be treated as an estate debt; the legal cause of the debt, its documentary evidence and whether it has been recorded more than once are examined. The transfers to be added to the calculation are then determined under Article 508 et seq. of the Turkish Civil Code.

Liquidation of the matrimonial property regime between spouses must also be separated from distribution of the inheritance. The surviving spouse's participation claim and inheritance share are not the same right. Real debts and claims arising from the liquidation are reflected in the estate calculation. The matrimonial property regime agreement and the special rules protecting non-common descendants are assessed separately; a shortcut calculation such as "the spouse always first receives half of all property" is incorrect. TMK Arts. 225, 231, 236–237, 507–509

The values received by the plaintiff must be deducted

From the calculated reserved portion, the values that the plaintiff has received from the remaining estate, and that must legally be counted toward his or her share, are deducted. Recording the same asset both as part of the estate existing at death and as a gift to be added from outside inflates the total. On the other hand, overlooking the remaining estate makes the reserved-portion shortfall appear larger than it is.

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 20, 2026, E. 2026/2401, K. 2026/2809, a problem of double counting had arisen at an earlier stage; in the final review, the reversal was based on the failure to deduct from the reserved portion the part of the remaining estate that falls to the plaintiff, and on the failure to obtain the approval of the municipal executive committee required for subdivision (ifraz). The decision shows that arithmetical accuracy and a legally workable division must be reviewed together. Full text of the decision

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 14, 2025, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611, it was not considered sufficient to conclude that the reserved portion had not been impaired on the basis of land-parcel areas, without determining the whole estate and its values. The rejection judgment was reversed. This reversal does not mean that the case has been definitively won; after the deficient examination is completed, the calculation must be made again. Full text of the decision

A cash gift and a gift of real estate are not the same calculation

If the decedent transferred his or her own immovable property, the subject of the transfer is the property. If the decedent paid for a home acquired in another person's name, a cash gift may be at issue. It is not correct in every file to equate the cash gift with the full market value of the home acquired later.

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated May 8, 2025, E. 2024/3533, K. 2025/2496, the emphasis is on determining the purchasing power at the date of death in relation to a home acquired in another person's name, and on gathering the cooperative and payment records. The judgment was reversed because the grounds for the separate claims were not distinguished and the necessary investigation had not been carried out. The plaintiff must show who made each payment; the defendant must be able to explain his or her own contribution through bank or cooperative records. Full text of the decision

For details of this subject, the article title deed annulment and registration in a housing cooperative may be consulted.

Reserved portion and abatement calculation with numerical examples

Example 1: A sole child and a gift of real estate to a third party

All amounts are in Turkish lira (TL). In this hypothetical example there is no spouse; the sole child is the sole heir. It is assumed that the gift falls within Article 565 of the Turkish Civil Code, that all expenses and debts have been deducted in advance, that there is no other transfer, and that the child brought the action in time.

If the real estate cannot be divided without losing value at a fixed rate, and the option under Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code to keep the property is used, then, if the value on the date of the judgment is taken as TL 9,000,000, the ratio calculation gives TL 3,000,000. The shortfall at the date of death and the price on the date of the judgment do not have to be the same figure. Interest, litigation costs and other offsets arising in the concrete case are not included in this simplified example.

Example 2: A spouse, two children and a bequest to a third party

It is assumed that the net estate is TL 10,000,000; that property worth TL 8,000,000 within it was bequeathed to a third party; and that the remaining TL 2,000,000 passed to the spouse and two children in their statutory shares. There is no earlier gift or special offset. The TL 8,000,000 bequest is already within the total estate of TL 10,000,000; it is not added again.

On the assumption that all three heirs assert their rights, the total shortfall is TL 4,250,000; relative to the bequest of TL 8,000,000, the ratio is 53.125%. The fact that only one child brings an action does not automatically ensure that the shortfalls of the others are decided in that action. The example also shows that the full statutory share of each heir is not protected: the total reserved portion is TL 6,250,000, and the disposable portion is TL 3,750,000.

Right of choice and valuation for indivisible real estate

First the ratio, then divisibility and choice

The fact that a property can be divided into shares on the title deed alone does not show that it can be physically and legally divided without loss of value. Once the fixed abatement ratio has been determined, the relevant technical and administrative conditions are examined. The zoning status, the minimum parcel size and the approval of the competent authority may be important.

Under Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code, where a particular property whose division would cause a loss of value is concerned, the person who benefits from the transfer exercises the right of choice: he or she may keep the property by paying the value of the part subject to abatement, or may leave the property by claiming the value of the disposable portion. For the first option, the law takes the value on the date of the judgment as the basis. A report obtained close to the judgment must be current enough to show that value reliably. The court's own creation of co-ownership in shares instead of a choice is not the same thing. TMK Art. 564; 7th Civil Chamber, 2025/2496

Earlier death-date decisions must not be carried over to the current rule

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated January 19, 2026, E. 2025/4705, K. 2026/311, the death occurred in 1989 and the decision was therefore given under the former Civil Code. The decision discusses the approach based on the value at the date of choice and the determination of the values of payments made on different dates. The rejection judgment was reversed for insufficient investigation. The fact that the decision is dated 2026 does not mean that all substantive legal rules are current. The date-of-choice criterion in this file cannot be used in place of the date-of-judgment criterion in the current Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code. Full text of the decision

An accepted example and the procedural limits of an increase in the price

In the decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated January 21, 2026, E. 2025/6016, K. 2026/371, the claim for abatement was accepted in the alternative after the claim for annulment of the title deed was rejected; the judgment of TL 2,515,086.25 for each plaintiff was upheld. The lower calculation at the earlier stage was not treated as an acquired right that limited the final price, because in the concrete file the fixed ratio, indivisibility and choice process had not yet been completed. The decision does not mean that earlier claims or the limits of appeal may be exceeded in every case; the stage at which the price claim arose and how the procedure proceeded are decisive. Full text of the decision

In what order is abatement applied?

Under Article 570 of the Turkish Civil Code, transfers mortis causa are abated first; if they are insufficient, lifetime transfers are abated in order from the most recent to the oldest. Transfers to public legal entities, and to public-benefit associations and foundations, are subject to the special order provided by law and come last. The plaintiff may not skip the earlier steps arbitrarily to begin with an old gift of his or her own choosing. For the limits of the reserved portion in establishing a foundation by will, the article establishing a foundation by will addresses the subject separately.

Among dispositions mortis causa, proportionate abatement is the rule unless the decedent had a different intention. Where the beneficiary of a transfer is also an heir entitled to a reserved portion, under Article 561 of the Turkish Civil Code the part of his or her share in excess of the reserved portion is taken into account. The identities of all beneficiaries and the dates of transfer must therefore be placed in the file. Amounts claimed against several defendants must not allow the same shortfall to be recovered twice. TMK Arts. 561, 563, 570

Plaintiff, defendant and the subsequent purchaser of the property

Who holds the right to sue?

As a rule, the heir whose reserved portion has been impaired brings the action for his or her own right. It is not necessary for all heirs to be plaintiffs; the silence of the other heirs does not enlarge the plaintiff's reserved portion. A claim for abatement cannot be spoken of if it has not arisen before the inheritance was opened.

Article 562 of the Turkish Civil Code provides a limited possibility for the heir's creditors and for the bankruptcy administration. For creditors, conditions such as a certificate of insufficiency of assets at the date the inheritance was opened, a formal notice to the heir, and inaction in response to it are required; the action is brought in the heir's name, within the heir's time limit and to the extent of the necessary debt. A creditor may not bring an abatement action merely by asserting that the debt has not been paid. TMK Arts. 560, 562 The question of whether creditors of an heir whose reserved portion has been impaired may bring this action is examined in the article abatement action by an heir's creditors.

The defendant is the person who benefited from the transfer subject to abatement or, in appropriate cases, that person's legal successor. In a file in which annulment of the title deed is also requested, the current owner and the question of whether the claim is properly directed at that owner are assessed separately. If a transfer occurs while the case is pending, the parties and claim options under Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure may come into question.

Does a transfer to a third party always defeat abatement?

No; however, an action cannot be brought automatically against every subsequent purchaser. In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated September 26, 2018, E. 2015/14106, K. 2018/12764, the transfer of gifted immovable property from the first beneficiary to his spouse was examined. The court stated that the action may be directed against the third party in circumstances where that third party knew or ought to have known that the purpose was to defeat the reserved portion; the rejection based merely on the absence of defendant status was reversed. The decision transmits the approach of the unifying decision of the Civil General Assembly dated January 13, 1975, E. 1974/7, K. 1975/1. Kinship alone is not conclusive evidence of bad faith in every case. Full text of the 2018 decision

In legal writing, whether a claim against a third party should be explained on the grounds of personal right, tort and simulation is debated. For this reason, a claim for return against the first beneficiary and a claim against a subsequent owner cannot be based on the same reasoning. Dalcı Özdoğan, 2017, especially pp. 382–389

Under Article 566 of the Turkish Civil Code, the obligation of a beneficiary acting in good faith to return a transfer is limited to what remains in his or her hands at the moment the inheritance passes; different liability rules apply to bad faith. The fact that the property is no longer held does not mean that its current market value can be obtained from any person in every case. The time of transfer, where the price went, good faith and the legal basis of the claim must be explained together.

Time limit for the action for abatement and proof of the date of knowledge

One-year and ten-year preclusive periods

Under Article 571 of the Turkish Civil Code, the right of action must be exercised within one year from the date on which the heir learned that his or her reserved portion had been impaired. The outer limit is ten years from the opening of the will for wills, and from the opening of the inheritance for other dispositions. Both limits are checked separately. The drafting of the will, its opening, its notification and the heir's learning of the impairment do not have to be the same date.

Knowledge of a gift before death does not automatically start the time limit for an inheritance that has not yet been opened. Nor should it be assumed that after death an official expert calculation must be awaited. Land registry records showing that the impairment was known, the will file, earlier case petitions, correspondence and notices are important. The plaintiff must explain the event by which he or she learned of the impairment; the defendant must set out, with supporting evidence, any claim that the heir learned of it earlier. The court considers the preclusive period on its own motion. TMK Art. 571

In the decision of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated April 15, 2015, E. 2015/4865, K. 2015/5531, the acceptance of the abatement claim was reversed because the one-year period had expired. However, the short text of the decision does not detail which concrete evidence determined the date of learning. It cannot be concluded from this decision that "in every file, the one-year period starts with death." Full text of the decision

Formal notice, another action and the former law

Sending a notary's formal notice or discussing the matter within the family does not, by itself, preserve the time limit for abatement. The fact that an action for simulation by the deceased has been brought does not, in itself, show that a separate abatement claim was raised within time; the content of the claim and the date of the action must be checked. The effect on the time limit of mediation begun in accordance with law is calculated separately under Article 16(2) of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes (HUAK); an intention to talk alone is not sufficient.

For inheritances opened before January 1, 2002, the former law and the transitional provisions of Law No. 4722 are important. The statute-of-limitations characterizations and starting points in earlier decisions must not be carried directly into the current preclusive-period regime. Law No. 4722, Arts. 17, 20

Differences between simulation by the deceased, annulment of a will and equalization

In equalization, particularly for transfers to descendants such as transfers of property, capital for establishing a business or release from debt, the rule in Article 669 of the Turkish Civil Code and the decedent's contrary intention are examined. A transfer excluded from equalization may still, in appropriate circumstances, be subject to abatement if it impairs the reserved portion. TMK Arts. 557, 560, 669–675

Can claims be brought in the alternative?

Where the conditions of Article 111 of the Code of Civil Procedure are met, a claim for annulment of the title deed or of the will may be brought first, and abatement may be requested if those claims are not accepted. The facts, parties, time limit and outcome of each claim must be stated separately. The court applying the law on its own motion does not mean that it may award any result that was not requested.

In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation dated June 10, 2020, E. 2017/3101, K. 2020/392, the evidence did not sufficiently prove that pressure had been exerted at the time the will was drawn up; the reasoning of the dissenting decision accepting annulment was reversed. It was stated that the alternative claim for abatement must be examined. This decision shows that the failure of an annulment claim does not automatically remove the claim for the reserved portion; it cannot be presented as a decision accepting abatement. Full text of the decision

Another action may raise a prejudicial question or a need to separate matters where it will determine which property enters the estate. In the decision concerning cash gifts, 2025/2496, the importance for the calculation of the outcome of a related claim for simulation by the deceased was also emphasized. This cannot be generalized to mean that all alternative claims must necessarily be separated.

Competent court, evidence, interim measures and drafting of the price claim

Jurisdiction, venue and mediation

The competent court for an action for abatement is the civil court of first instance. Under Article 576 of the Turkish Civil Code and Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court of the decedent's last place of residence has exclusive territorial jurisdiction. The fact that the property is located in another city does not by itself move the action to that city. Real estate claims founded on separate legal grounds, such as simulation, must be examined separately for jurisdiction.

Abatement is not subject to mandatory mediation under Article 18/B of HUAK merely because it concerns an inheritance or real estate. The condition-precedent regime for partition and division disputes is different. Where the dispute is suitable, voluntary mediation is possible; the parties to the agreement, its scope and its applicability to the real estate must be checked. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, Arts. 2, 11–12; Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 16, 17/B, 18/B

Where a foreign element is present, Articles 20 and 43 of Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure (MÖHUK) also apply. The application of Turkish law to immovable property in Türkiye does not mean that the same rule applies to the foreign decedent's entire worldwide property. The form of a foreign will and the capacity to dispose of property are also subject to separate connecting rules. Law No. 5718

How should the evidence plan be built?

An expert report must not contain only a single result figure. The assets, liabilities, value to be added, offset against the plaintiff, reserved portion, fixed ratio and valuation dates must be shown separately. An objection must not be limited to saying that "the calculation is wrong"; the faulty item, date or method must be specified. Records obtained unlawfully must not be included in the evidence plan. Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 189–194, 266, 281

The 2026 procedural amendment: attention to older statements on uncertain claims

The amendment that entered into force on July 31, 2026 repealed Article 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and added a fourth paragraph to Article 109. The current text provides that, where part of a receivable is sued, the subject of the claim may be increased in the same action, once, until the end of the inquiry, without being subject to the prohibition on expanding the claim. The provision also states that, for the increased part, the limitation period is deemed interrupted on the date of the action. For that reason, the older publications' recommendation that "an action for an uncertain claim should be brought under Article 107" must not be repeated as the current rule. Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 107, 109 and transitional schedule

The exercise of the abatement right and the amount of the money claim that arises from it are not the same question. The effect of the statute of limitations in the new provision does not automatically extend the preclusive period under Article 571 of the Turkish Civil Code. The petition must state which transfer is being abated for which shortfall in the reserved portion and, if restitution in kind is not possible, the result sought must be clearly stated. Completed procedural steps and transitional rules in pending older actions are assessed separately; it cannot be assumed that every abatement action is subject to the same procedure for increasing the claim.

Interim injunction, costs and enforcement of the judgment

Filing an action does not automatically stop the transfer of the property in the land registry. Where there is serious difficulty or a risk of harm in respect of the right in dispute, an interim injunction may be requested within the framework of a prima facie showing and proportionality. Security and the enforcement of the decision on the title deed are considered separately. The enforcement of an interim injunction must be requested within one week from the date on which it was announced or notified, for the party requesting it. In the case of an injunction before the action is filed, the action on the merits must be brought, and the necessary document submitted to the relevant file, within two weeks of the date on which the enforcement was requested. Code of Civil Procedure, Arts. 389–393, 397

Where the need is only to secure a money claim, an attachment (ihtiyati haciz) may be considered separately, where the conditions are met; an injunction over real estate and an attachment for a money claim are not the same institution. Fees, on-site examination, expert fees, notification costs and possible opposing counsel fees are calculated according to the value of the action, the proceedings and the outcome. A single fixed total cost cannot be given for all abatement actions. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Art. 257; Law on Fees No. 492, Arts. 16, 30

Whether the judgment concerns a change in the title deed or the collection of a specific sum determines how it is enforced. For a judgment on the property itself, finality is the condition for registration; for a money judgment, enforcement on the basis of a judgment and, where applicable, suspension of enforcement are considered separately. The route of appeal and of appeal on points of law must be determined by the nature of the decision, the value of the action, notification and the transitional provisions. Under the current Additional Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the monetary thresholds for the relevant amounts are based on the amount at the date the action was brought; it is not correct to look only at the threshold for the year of the decision. The type and start of interest must also be explained according to the claim chosen; it must not be assumed that interest from the date of death can automatically be claimed in every file.

For details, the articles sham transfer of real estate and annulment of the title deed and title registration and enforcement based on a will may be consulted.

Conclusion

The centre of an action for abatement is not that a gift is unfair, but the demonstration, both legally and numerically, of a shortfall in the reserved portion. A correct examination begins with the law applicable as of the date of death, continues with the whole estate and the transfers, and after the values received by the plaintiff have been deducted, arrives at the appropriate claim and the appropriate defendant.

Distinctions must not be blurred between an appointment of an heir by will and a bequest of specific property; between a cash gift and a gift of real estate; and between the ratio calculation as of the date of death and the price as of the date of judgment. The time limit calculation must be made at the first stage, and the abatement claim must not be left to await the uncertain outcome of another action. An effective file brings together the certificate of inheritance, all estate records, the chain of transfers and the date of learning within a single calculation.

For related aspects, the articles appointment of a substitute heir and a residual heir and equalization claim of descendants may also be consulted.

Frequently Asked Questions

Must a person be an heir entitled to a reserved portion to bring an action for abatement?

As a rule, yes. The heir whose reserved portion has been impaired brings the action for his or her own right. The limited possibilities granted to heirs' creditors and to the bankruptcy administration under Article 562 of the Turkish Civil Code are considered separately. Related explanation.

Does a sibling have a reserved portion?

Under current law, no. A sibling may be a statutory heir, but cannot claim a reserved portion merely by virtue of that status. For inheritances opened before May 10, 2007, the former regulation and the transitional provisions are examined. Related explanation.

Can a father leave all of his property to one child?

Such a disposition can be made; however, if it breaches the protected portion of the other heirs entitled to a reserved portion, abatement becomes relevant. Not every inequality is a breach. The calculation is made with the values that the other heirs obtain from the estate and from the relevant transfers. Related explanation.

Can a gift made more than one year ago be abated?

Yes. The first, second or fourth subparagraphs of Article 565 of the Turkish Civil Code, or the provision on gifts with a reserved right of unilateral revocation, may apply. The one-year rule is not a general limit on the action for all gifts. Related explanation.

If a will is valid, can the reserved portion not be claimed?

It can. Abatement reduces the effect of a valid disposition that exceeds the reserved portion. The existence of grounds such as lack of capacity, defect of form or defect of intent, which are required for annulment of a will, is not a necessary condition for abatement. Related explanation.

In appointing an heir by will, must the value of the real estate always be paid?

No. The distinction between appointment of an heir over the whole estate or a proportion of it, and a bequest of specific property, must be drawn. In the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, E. 2025/44, K. 2026/16, the procedure under Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code on indivisibility and choice was not applied to the appointment of an heir. Related explanation.

Which date's value is used in an action for abatement?

The estate and reserved-portion calculation uses the date of death. Under the current Article 564 of the Turkish Civil Code, where the indivisible property is left with the beneficiary, the value on the date of the judgment is important. For disputes concerning earlier deaths, the applicable law may differ. Related explanation.

Is an action for abatement brought where the property is located?

As a rule, it is brought before the civil court of first instance of the decedent's last place of residence. The fact that the property is located elsewhere does not by itself change this exclusive jurisdiction. Foreign elements and claims based on a different legal ground are examined separately. Related explanation.

Does the sale of a gifted home prevent the action?

Not in every case. The first beneficiary's liability to return, and the conditions for directing a claim against a subsequent purchaser, are assessed separately. The third party's knowledge, the transfer relationship and the legal basis of the claim are important. Related explanation.

Does a notary's formal notice preserve the one-year time limit?

Not on its own. The abatement action or another appropriate procedural claim must be raised within the time limit. The effect on the calculation of time of mediation begun in accordance with law rests on a separate provision. Related explanation.

If an action for simulation by the deceased is rejected, is abatement also rejected?

Not necessarily. An abatement claim that was raised in time and in the appropriate form is examined on its own conditions. However, a claim for annulment of the title deed does not always, by itself, include a separate claim for abatement. Related explanation.

Must all heirs bring the action together?

No. Each heir entitled to a reserved portion may bring an action for his or her own shortfall. The share of an heir who remains inactive is not added to the other plaintiffs; and an acceptance in the action does not automatically produce the same result for all heirs. Related explanation.

Sources and legal bases

Legislation

• Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, in particular Arts. 225, 231, 236–237, 495–512, 528, 557, 560–571, 576, 669–675.
• Law No. 4722 on the Enforcement and Application of the Turkish Civil Code, Arts. 17, 20.
• Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, in particular Arts. 19, 611–617.
• Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, in particular Arts. 2, 11–12, 26, 33, 107, 109, 111, 125, 189–194, 266, 281, 323, 326, 341 et seq., 367, 389–397, 448; transitional schedule of the amendments.
• Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Arts. 16, 17/B, 18/B.
• Law No. 5718 on Private International Law and Procedure, Arts. 20, 43.
• Law No. 492 on Fees, Arts. 16, 30; Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004, Art. 257.

Court of Cassation decisions

• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, January 21, 2026, E. 2025/44, K. 2026/16.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 20, 2026, E. 2026/2401, K. 2026/2809.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 14, 2025, E. 2024/4725, K. 2025/2611.
• Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, June 10, 2020, E. 2017/3101, K. 2020/392.
• 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, April 15, 2015, E. 2015/4865, K. 2015/5531.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 19, 2026, E. 2025/4705, K. 2026/311.
• 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, September 26, 2018, E. 2015/14106, K. 2018/12764. The approach of the unifying decision of January 13, 1975 is used as it is transmitted in the reasoning of this decision.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, May 8, 2025, E. 2024/3533, K. 2025/2496.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, March 24, 2026, E. 2025/4272, K. 2026/1519.
• 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, January 21, 2026, E. 2025/6016, K. 2026/371.

Academic studies

• Turan Başara, Gamze, “Abatement of Dispositions Mortis Causa and the Action for Abatement (Ölüme Bağlı Tasarrufların Tenkisi ve Tenkis Davası)”, Journal of the Turkish Academy of Justice (Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi), 2016, issue 27, pp. 365–408. Full text.
• Dalcı Özdoğan, Nurcihan, “Abatement of Immovable Property Transferred Inter Vivos (Sağlararası Kazandırma Konusu Taşınmazların Tenkisi)”, İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (İnönü University Law Faculty Journal), 2017, vol. 8, issue 2, pp. 363–392, DOI: 10.21492/inuhfd.331482. Full text.