Inheritance Law Law
This section addresses certificates of inheritance, wills, reduction (tenkis) and testator-collusion actions, and the partition of estates under the Turkish Civil Code.
Testator's Collusion: Cancellation of Title and Re-registration Action
Protection against simulated transfers intended to defeat heirs
What is testator's collusion (muris muvazaası), how is it proved, and how is the action brought? An avenue for heirs against sham sales designed to deplete the estate.
Testator's collusion is the situation in which the testator, intending to defeat his or her heirs, transfers immovable property by a transaction nominally presented as a sale but which is in substance a gift. Under Turkish law, the Court of Cassation's General Assembly on Unification of Decisions ruling of 1 April 1974, No. 1/2, treats such transactions as absolutely null and void and recognises the heirs' standing to sue.
Legal Nature and Requirements
Testator's collusion concerns a divergence between the apparent transaction (usually a sale) and the hidden transaction (usually a gift). Land-registry transfers shown as sales but for which no price was paid, or for which a price well below market value was paid, are typical examples of collusive transactions that infringe the rights of the heirs.
For the action to succeed, it must be shown that (i) the apparent transaction is a sale, (ii) the parties' true intention was to make a gift, (iii) the transaction was intended to defeat the heirs, and (iv) the actual gift was not made by an official deed before the land registrar.
Evidence
Collusion may be proved by any type of evidence. According to the settled case-law of the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, the following factors are decisive: whether the testator had any need to sell at the time, whether the buyer had the financial means to pay the stated price, whether that price was below comparable market values, the degree of closeness between the parties, and the actual use of the property after the sale.
Proof that the price was actually paid, by receipts or bank records, is determinative for the defendant; failing such proof, the Court of Cassation tends to infer collusion from the ordinary course of life.
Outcome and Limitation
If the action succeeds, the apparent sale is held void on grounds of collusion and the hidden gift is held void for non-compliance with form (TMK art.706). The land-registry entry is cancelled and the property is restored to the estate; the heirs then become entitled to re-registration in accordance with their statutory shares.
Because the testator's-collusion action is in the nature of a claim against the estate, it is not subject to any limitation period. The heirs may bring the action at any time after the testator's death. The court of subject-matter jurisdiction is the Civil Court of First Instance, and the court of territorial jurisdiction is the court of the place where the immovable property is located (HMK art.12).
Practical Considerations
In inheritance disputes, the first step is to clarify the status of the heirs, the scope of the estate and any dispositions on death. Civil-registry records, certificates of inheritance, land-registry records, bank correspondence, the records of the opening of a will and any transfers made by the deceased during their lifetime should be reviewed together.
The time limits and types of action for matters such as reduction, testator collusion, renunciation of inheritance, annulment of a will and inheritance waiver differ from one another. Correctly identifying the date of knowledge, the opening of the estate, the opening of the will and the date of any renunciation declaration prevents the loss of rights.
Because intra-family transactions are often conducted without written documents, bank receipts, the values reflected in the deed, the testator's economic needs, witness accounts and patterns of actual use are particularly important. The earlier the evidence is prepared, the more soundly the legal framework of the dispute can be established.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- TBK m.19Simulated contract
Original (Turkish, official):
MADDE 19- Bir sözleşmenin türünün ve içeriğinin belirlenmesinde ve yorumlanmasında, tarafların yanlışlıkla veya gerçek amaçlarını gizlemek için kullandıkları sözcüklere bakılmaksızın, gerçek ve ortak iradeleri esas alınır. Borçlu, yazılı bir borç tanımasına güvenerek alacağı kazanmış olan üçüncü kişiye karşı, bu işlemin muvazaalı olduğu savunmasında bulunamaz.
English summary (non-binding):
Article 19- In determining the type and content of a contract and in its interpretation, the true and common intention of the parties is decisive, regardless of any words used by them in error or to conceal their real purpose. A debtor may not raise the defence of simulation against a third party who acquired the claim relying on a written acknowledgment of debt.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- TMK m.706Form requirement for transfer of immovable property
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 706- Taşınmaz mülkiyetinin devrini amaçlayan sözleşmelerin geçerli olması, resmî şekilde düzenlenmiş bulunmalarına bağlıdır. Ölüme bağlı tasarruflar ve mal rejimi sözleşmeleri, kendilerine özgü şekillere tâbidir.
English summary (non-binding):
Article 706- The validity of contracts intended to transfer ownership of immovable property depends on their being executed in official form. Testamentary dispositions and matrimonial property regime contracts are subject to their own special forms.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- TBK m.288Form of the gift contract
Original (Turkish, official):
MADDE 288- Bağışlama sözü vermenin geçerliliği, bu sözleşmenin yazılı şekilde yapılmasına bağlıdır. Bir taşınmazın veya taşınmaz üzerindeki ayni bir hakkın bağışlanması sözü vermenin geçerliliği, ancak resmî şekilde yapılmış olmasına bağlıdır. Şekle uyulmaması sebebiyle geçersiz olan bağışlama sözü verme, bağışlayan tarafından yerine getirildiğinde, elden bağışlama hükmündedir. Ancak, geçerliliği resmî şekle bağlanmış olan bağışlamalarda bu hüküm uygulanmaz.
English summary (non-binding):
Article 288- A promise to make a gift is valid only if made in writing. A promise to give an immovable property or an in rem right thereon is valid only if made in official form. A promise to make a gift that is void for non-compliance with form is treated as a hand-to-hand gift if performed by the donor; this rule does not, however, apply to gifts whose validity is subject to the official form.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- TMK m.495Statutory heirs — descendants
Original (Turkish, official):
Madde 495- Mirasbırakanın birinci derece mirasçıları, onun altsoyudur. Çocuklar eşit olarak mirasçıdırlar. Mirasbırakandan önce ölmüş olan çocukların yerini, her derecede halefiyet yoluyla kendi altsoyları alır.
English summary (non-binding):
Article 495- The first-degree heirs of the testator are the testator's descendants. Children inherit in equal shares. Children who predeceased the testator are replaced by their own descendants at every degree by way of representation.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- HMK m.12Exclusive jurisdiction in actions concerning immovables
Original (Turkish, official):
MADDE 12- (1) Taşınmaz üzerindeki ayni hakka ilişkin veya ayni hak sahipliğinde değişikliğe yol açabilecek davalar ile taşınmazın zilyetliğine yahut alıkoyma hakkına ilişkin davalarda, taşınmazın bulunduğu yer mahkemesi kesin yetkilidir. (2) İrtifak haklarına ilişkin davalar, üzerinde irtifak hakkı kurulan taşınmazın bulunduğu yer mahkemesinde açılır. (3) Bu davalar, birden fazla taşınmaza ilişkinse, taşınmazlardan birinin bulunduğu yerde, diğerleri hakkında da açılabilir.
English summary (non-binding):
Article 12- (1) In actions concerning a real right over immovable property or capable of effecting a change in such a right, and in actions concerning possession of or a lien over immovable property, the court of the place where the immovable property is located has exclusive jurisdiction. (2) Actions concerning easements are brought before the court of the place where the servient immovable is located. (3) Where such actions relate to several immovables, they may be brought, in respect of the others as well, at the place of any one of them.
Source: mevzuat.gov.tr · last reviewed: 2026-05-12
- 1.4.1974 tarihli 1/2 sayılı YİBKUnifying decision on testator's collusion
Original (Turkish, official):
Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Genel Kurulu'nun 1.4.1974 tarih ve 1974/1 E., 1974/2 K. sayılı kararıyla benimsenen muris muvazaası kuralı: Mirasbırakanın gerçek iradesi mirasçılardan mal kaçırmaksa, görünüşte yapılan taşınmaz satışı tarafları bağlamaz; gizli işlem bağışlama olduğu halde bağışlamanın resmî şekil şartına uyulmadığı için bu da geçersizdir. Bu nedenle saklı paylı olsun olmasın tüm yasal mirasçılar, miras hakları çiğnendiği oranda muvazaalı işlemin iptalini (tapunun mirasçılar adına tesciline ya da terekeye iadesine) isteyebilir. Bu hakkın kullanılması zamanaşımına tâbi değildir. (Bu hüküm bir Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararıdır; tam metin ve gerekçe Resmî Gazete'de yayımlanmaz, Yargıtay Kararlar Dergisi 1974/6 sayısında yer almıştır.)
English summary (non-binding):
The rule of testator's collusion adopted by the Court of Cassation's General Assembly on Unification of Decisions in its decision of 1 April 1974, No. 1974/1 E., 1974/2 K.: where the testator's true intention is to defeat the heirs, the apparent sale of immovable property does not bind the parties; and since the hidden transaction is a gift that has not been executed in the official form required for gifts, that transaction is also void. Accordingly, all statutory heirs — whether forced heirs or not — may seek the cancellation of the collusive transaction (and the registration of title in the heirs' names or its restoration to the estate) to the extent that their inheritance rights have been infringed. The exercise of this right is not subject to any limitation period. (This is a Unifying Decision of the Court of Cassation; the full text and reasoning are not published in the Official Gazette but appear in the Court of Cassation Journal, Issue 1974/6.)
The statutory provisions are reproduced for information purposes only. The current and official text on mevzuat.gov.tr is authoritative.
Conclusion
Although testator's-collusion actions are not subject to a limitation period, evidence tends to deteriorate over time. Land-registry transfers, the flow of any price paid, the testator's economic needs and the post-sale possession patterns should be investigated early.
This article is for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you would like professional assistance on a specific matter, you may request a consultation.
Request a Consultation