A donated house or plot of land cannot be taken back merely because the donor later regrets the gift. To reclaim a completed donation, one of the grounds in Article 295 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) must exist, and the right of revocation must be exercised within the time limit. Serious crimes, material breach of statutory family obligations and failure to perform a donation charge without justified reason are at the centre of this review. [1]
The first question is whether the transaction really is a donation. Where the deed shows a sale, where a usufruct right has been retained by the donor, or where the transfer was made in return for care, the same legal rules do not automatically apply. Revocation of a donation, lack of legal capacity, fraud, simulation by the deceased and breach of a contract of maintenance until death are separate grounds for a lawsuit.
The difference between a completed donation and a promise to donate
A donation of immovable property, and a promise to donate a right in rem over it, is subject to statutory form. TBK Article 288 also expressly provides that the rule converting a promise to donate that does not meet the form requirement into a gift effected by performance does not apply to donations subject to statutory form. For immovable property, therefore, the conclusion "I have already given it, so a defect in form is cured in any case" is not reached. [1, 2]
Promise not yet performed
TBK Article 296 separately regulates the grounds on which a promise to donate may be withdrawn and performance refused. A sudden, extraordinary deterioration of the donor's financial situation, or new family obligations, may matter for a promise not yet performed, where their conditions are met. These grounds cannot turn every previously completed real estate donation into one that reverts automatically. [1]
This distinction matters especially for claims by donors who face economic hardship years after the gift. Has the title been transferred, or is there only a commitment? Which charge or reversion condition was attached to the donation? These questions must be answered at the outset.
On which grounds can a completed donation be revoked?
Serious crime against the donor or relatives
A serious crime committed by the donee against the donor or one of the donor's relatives may be a ground for revocation under TBK Article 295(1). The gravity of the event, the relationship between the parties and the concrete conduct are examined. Not every hurtful word, quarrel or social withdrawal falls under this heading automatically. [1]
Statements in the criminal file, forensic reports and findings on the material facts are important evidence. However, the legal consequence sought for the title is assessed separately. The opening of a criminal investigation does not return the title to the donor automatically, nor does it mean that the time limit for revocation can safely be awaited.
Material breach of obligations arising from law
The second ground is a material breach by the donee of legal obligations owed to the donor or a member of the donor's family. Here it must be shown not merely what the donor personally expected, but which statutory obligation was breached by which conduct. [1]
For example, the need for care or assistance, the parties' means and obligations arising from family law may be examined in the concrete file. By contrast, the statement "I expected you to visit more often" is not, on its own, a sufficient ground in every donation. The seriousness of the conduct and the source of the obligation must be explained.
Non-performance of a donation charge without justified reason
A donation may have been made subject to a charge. Using the property for a specific educational, health or social purpose, or carrying out a particular building project, may be examples. The acceptance of the charge, its scope, the time of performance and the reason for non-performance are examined. [1]
Not every statement of purpose is a binding charge. The donor's inner expectation must be distinguished from the obligation the other party accepted. TBK Article 291 also contains a specific rule on the costs of the charge and on the value of the subject matter. Where justified reasons are put forward in the revocation assessment, their concrete basis is examined.
| Ground invoked | Element to be substantiated | Fact that is not sufficient on its own |
|---|---|---|
| Serious crime | The act, the perpetrator, the victim and its gravity | Every family quarrel |
| Breach of a family obligation | The statutory duty and a material breach | Mere expectation or resentment |
| Non-performance of a charge | The accepted charge, its performance status and the absence of justified reason | The donor's undisclosed purpose |
| Promise not yet performed | The separate conditions of TBK Article 296 | The same assessment as for a completed donation |
How does the Court of Cassation assess a donation of property with a charge?
2025/6180: Unbuilt structure and the date of learning
In its decision of December 24, 2025, E.2025/2059, K.2025/6180, the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber (Yargıtay 1. Hukuk Dairesi) examined land donated to a foundation on condition that a Quran course be built. The long absence of construction, and the foundation's notice that the aim could not be achieved at that location, were assessed; the decision accepting revocation was upheld. The date on which the ground for revocation became known through the institution's written reply was significant for the one-year period. [3]
The decision does not show that a property reverts automatically after a fixed number of years in every donation. The accepted charge, the factual situation and the date of learning are decisive together. In the same case, the heirs continued the action after the donor's death; this does not give heirs an unlimited right to revoke all donations.
2026/515: Official deed and the donation file read together
In its decision of February 2, 2026, E.2025/6825, K.2026/515, the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber assessed a donation of immovable property to a municipality together with its purpose and transaction documents. In addition to the official deed, the documents relating to the donation process at the municipality were taken into account; the decision accepting the claim, based on non-performance of the charge and the assessment of time, was upheld. [4]
This decision is a concrete example of why a single phrase in the title deed should not be relied on. However, not every oral expectation creates a binding charge independently of formal requirements and rules of proof. The documents must relate to the same donation transaction and show the purpose accepted by the other party.
When does the one-year revocation period start?
Under TBK Article 297, the donor may revoke the donation within one year from the day on which the donor learned of the ground for revocation. This period is not a general one-year term running from the date the donation was made. Likewise, the five-year outer limit applicable to laesio enormis (gabin) does not automatically apply to revocation of a donation. [1]
The event of learning must be concretised. The day the act occurred and the day the donor learned of it may differ. In a donation with a charge, what matters is when it became clear that the charge would not be performed, the periods set in the contract and the parties' correspondence. Every new formal notice (ihtar) does not start a new one-year period for a ground that was already known.
Revocation notice and lawsuit
The notice of revocation must state clearly which ground it relies on, and it must be possible to prove that it reached the addressee. Where the title is not transferred back voluntarily, judicial protection is needed through a suitable action for cancellation and re-registration of title. The exercise of the right by notice and the nature of any later request for return should be assessed separately; one should not rely on a vague complaint or a mere statement of regret about the donation.
One should not assume that the one-year period is automatically preserved while an investigation, internal correspondence within an institution or conciliation talks are ongoing. In particular, where documents show that the ground was already known earlier, a notice sent later may not remove the problem of exercising the right in time.
If the donor dies, can heirs exercise the right of revocation?
TBK Article 297 specifically regulates the transfer to heirs. If the donor had learned of the ground for revocation and died before the one-year period expired, the heirs may exercise the right within the remaining period. In this case, death does not always give a fresh year. [1]
If the donor could not learn of the ground for revocation during life, the heirs may exercise the right within one year from death. The law contains special provisions for the case in which the donee intentionally and unlawfully kills the donor or prevents the donor from exercising the right. These special cases must not be reduced to the same time wording as ordinary family disputes.
| Situation | Basic consequence for the period |
|---|---|
| The donor who learned of the ground is alive | One year from learning |
| The donor who learned of it died before the period expired | The heirs may exercise the right within the remaining period |
| The donor could not learn of the ground during life | The heirs may exercise the right within one year from death |
| Intentional unlawful killing of the donor or prevention of the exercise of the right | The special provision of TBK Article 297 is assessed separately |
Heirs conducting the action must also consider the representation of the estate and in whose name the claim will be brought. The transfer of the revocation right to heirs does not, by itself, resolve questions of joint ownership and the joinder of parties. Other inheritance law claims, such as abatement (tenkis) or simulation by the deceased, should not be confused with this action.
Reserved usufruct and the reversion condition in favour of the donor
Usufruct is not always a right of revocation
The owner may have donated the bare ownership and reserved the usufruct for themselves. Usufruct is a right in rem concerning the use of the property; on its own, it does not mean that the donor may take back the ownership at any time. Interference with the usufruct and the occurrence of the conditions for revocation are assessed separately. [2]
Reversion condition if the donee dies first
TBK Article 292 allows a condition under which the subject matter of the donation returns to the donor if the donee dies before the donor. For immovable property, or a right in rem over it, this condition may be noted in the land registry. This special contractual arrangement is different from the grounds in TBK Article 295, namely serious crime or breach of a charge. [1]
Accordingly, generalisations such as "the donee has died, so the house comes back to me automatically" or "I kept the usufruct, so I can take the title whenever I wish" are not correct. The contract, the annotation and the position of the heirs must be examined together.
Where the deed shows a sale, which issue is resolved first?
Where a donation is claimed in order to revoke a transaction that the official deed presents as a sale, the nature and validity of the real transaction must first be examined. The question of written proof of simulation between the parties, that is, whether the transfer was in fact a sale, is distinct from the proof of the ground for revocation. An allegation that the donor was not visited or was badly treated does not remove the need to prove the actual donation relationship.
In its decision of December 8, 2025, E.2025/311, K.2025/5756, the Court of Cassation 1st Civil Chamber upheld the rejection, because the claim that a transfer presented as a sale was in fact a donation could not be proven in writing. This file shows the importance of establishing the correct type of transaction before a revocation claim is made. [5] This issue is also addressed in our article on right of pre-emption.
Lawsuit, evidence and the scope of what must be returned
An action for cancellation and re-registration of title is, as a rule, directed against the current registered owner. Where the donated property has been transferred to another person, the position of the third party, the date of the transfer and its legal basis are assessed separately. A notice of revocation does not automatically eliminate all subsequent entries and mortgages in the land registry. The acquisition of rights in rem and, where present, the provisions protecting reliance on the land registry are assessed under their own conditions. [2]
TBK Article 295 relates the claim for return to the donee's enrichment at the date of the claim. Accordingly, whether the property is still held, any disposal, the consideration received and other concrete circumstances matter. It must not be assumed in every file that the full present value of the property will automatically be recovered. [1]
The main evidence consists of the official deed, the offer and acceptance documents of the donation, correspondence showing the charge, the notice of revocation and proof of its service, records of the date of learning, an examination of actual use, and documents relating to the conduct relied on. Witnesses must be identified by what they saw and when. In a donation to a public institution, the decision and transaction file of that institution should be specifically examined.
In an ordinary private-law title dispute, the civil court of first instance and the mandatory territorial jurisdiction of the place where the property is located are assessed. The fact that a public institution is a party does not automatically turn every donation dispute into an administrative action; the nature of the transaction and of the claim is decisive. Mediation, subject-matter jurisdiction and representation are checked against the underlying relationship. [6]
Where there is a risk of resale, an interim injunction may be requested; a prima facie showing of the charge and of the ground for revocation is submitted. The injunction must be implemented within the required time. Court fees and expenses are calculated according to the value of the claim, and the periods for legal remedies run from service. For the judgment on the right in rem to be applied in the land registry, finality and the correct display of current records are important. [6]
Related topics can be found in our articles on simulated transfer of immovable property, title cancellation based on a contract of maintenance until death and equalisation in inheritance and return to the estate.
Conclusion
In reclaiming a donated property, the type of donation, the statutory ground for revocation and the time limit linked to learning together are decisive. Regret, economic hardship or family estrangement alone do not undo a completed donation. In donations with a charge, the accepted obligation and the reason for non-performance must be proven; in family disputes, the legal nature of the conduct must be proven. No outcome should be expected without a separate assessment of heirs, usufruct and subsequent transfers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I take back the house I donated to my child whenever I want?
No. For a completed donation, statutory grounds for revocation or another valid legal basis must exist.
Can I withdraw my donation if my child does not speak to me?
Mere non-contact is not sufficient in every case. It is examined whether a statutory obligation arising from law has been materially breached or whether another ground for revocation exists.
If my financial situation deteriorates later, does the title come back?
Not automatically. The rule of TBK Article 296 on a promise not yet performed must be distinguished from the revocation of a completed donation.
Does the one-year period run from the day of the donation?
Under TBK Article 297, the day on which the ground for revocation was learned is the basis. The date of learning must be determined by concrete evidence.
What happens if the building promised on a donated plot is not built?
If there is a valid and accepted charge, failure to perform it without justified reason may be a ground for revocation. The contract, the actual circumstances and the date of learning are examined.
Can heirs bring an action for revocation of a donation?
If the transfer conditions of TBK Article 297 are met, they may bring the action or continue an action already begun. In either case, a new one-year period does not start.
Does reserving the usufruct for myself give me a right to take the property back?
Not on its own. Usufruct is different from the right to revoke ownership.
If the donee dies before me, does the property come back to me?
A reversion condition agreed under TBK Article 292 and any annotation are examined. Without such an arrangement, an automatic return is not assumed.
Sources and legal bases
1 — Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 285, 288, 290–292 and 295–297.
2 — Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), in particular Articles 640, 702, 706, 794 et seq. and 1023–1025.
3 — Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, December 24, 2025, E.2025/2059, K.2025/6180, full text of the decision; charge and date of learning.
4 — Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, February 2, 2026, E.2025/6825, K.2026/515, full text of the decision; transaction documents of the donation to a municipality.
5 — Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, December 8, 2025, E.2025/311, K.2025/5756, full text of the decision; simulation between the parties and the donation claim.
6 — Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 2, 12, 111, 125, 190, 200–203, 345, 361, 367 and 389–397.