Collusive Transfer by the Deceased occurs when the deceased, with the aim of diverting assets from the heirs, records a property in the land registry as a sale or as a contract for care until death, although in reality it is a gift. In everyday language it is also called diverting assets from the estate; but not every diversion of assets is collusive: if the transfer was openly recorded as a gift, there is no concealed transaction and the remedy, if the conditions are met, is an action in abatement (Turkish Civil Code art. 565).
There are two transactions: the sale shown in the land registry and the gift that the parties actually intended. The heirs’ claim is that the apparent transaction does not reflect reality.
The order of succession and reserved share ratios are explained on the Inheritance Law page, and the general framework for cancellation of the land registry entry is explained on the cancellation of the title deed and re-registration page.
Is there a provision in the statutes called “collusive transfer by the deceased”?
No. The expression “collusive transfer by the deceased” does not appear in the Turkish Civil Code, the Turkish Code of Obligations, the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure or the Turkish Land Registry Law. The expression “deceased” is also not used in the Turkish Civil Code; the statute refers to this person as the person leaving an inheritance. The term is one used in practice.
There is only one provision that regulates collusion in general:
“In determining and interpreting the type and content of a contract, the true and common intentions of the parties prevail, regardless of the words they used by mistake or to conceal their true intentions.” (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 19/1)
The marginal note to the article also says this: “Interpretation of contracts, collusive transactions.” The conditions specific to the context of inheritance are derived from this general rule by the Court of Cassation’s decision unifying case law and the practice that follows it. Below, the part that is set out in the statute and the part that comes from practice are indicated separately.
Two transactions: the apparent sale and the concealed gift
When the statutory rule of interpretation is applied, two separate transactions emerge and neither of them remains valid, for different reasons.
The apparent sale does not reflect the parties’ true intention. The sale in the land registry was made in the official form required by law (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 237/1); the problem is not the form but the intention. The true and common intention is considered rather than the words, and the parties did not want a sale.
The concealed gift, however, is defective as to form. A gift is a gratuitous disposition (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 285/1). Contracts aimed at transferring ownership of immovable property are valid only if made in official form (Turkish Civil Code art. 706/1); as to gifts, the statute further provides: “A promise to make a gift of an immovable or of a real right over an immovable is valid only if made in official form” (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 288/2). A promise of gift that is invalid for failure to comply with the form is treated, when performed, as a gift executed by delivery; “however, this provision does not apply to gifts whose validity is subject to official form” (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 288/3). A gift executed by delivery is in any event provided only for movables (Turkish Code of Obligations art. 289). Thus, the fact that the title deed has actually been transferred does not make a gift of immovable property made without compliance with the official form valid.
Therefore the registration is wrongful. A registration based on a non-binding legal transaction or lacking a legal basis is wrongful (Turkish Civil Code art. 1024/2); accordingly, a person whose real right is harmed may bring an action for rectification of the land registry (Turkish Civil Code art. 1025/1). The action is brought with a request for cancellation of the land registry entry and re-registration.
Who can bring the action, and against whom is it brought?
The action is brought by an heir whose inheritance rights have been harmed by the deceased’s transaction ostensibly presented as a sale. The rules to be aware of are as follows:
- There is no reserved-share requirement. In practice, the claimant is not required to hold a reserved share.
- Every heir may bring the action individually. In practice, each heir may bring the action in proportion to his or her own inheritance share; the other heirs do not need to join the action. If the return of the whole immovable to all the heirs is sought, how the action should be structured must be assessed separately; appointing a representative for the community of heirs by the Civil Court of Peace is one way of doing so (Turkish Civil Code art. 640/3).
- The action is brought after death. Heirs acquire the estate upon the death of the deceased (Turkish Civil Code art. 599/1); bringing an action on this basis while the deceased is alive is not accepted in practice.
- A person who has renounced the inheritance cannot bring the action. The share of a person who has renounced the inheritance passes to those entitled to it as if that person had not been alive when the inheritance devolved (Turkish Civil Code art. 611/1; see how to renounce an inheritance).
- Heirship is proved by a document. A certificate of inheritance is obtained from the Civil Court of Peace or from a notary public (Turkish Civil Code art. 598/1; see how to obtain a certificate of inheritance).
- The defendant is the person who acquired the immovable; if that person has died, the defendant is his or her heir. If the immovable was subsequently transferred to someone else, see the section below on interim measures.
In which cases is collusive transfer by the deceased accepted, and in which cases is it not?
The law sets out no criteria on this matter. The central question is whether the deceased’s true purpose was to divert assets from the heirs. In the Court of Cassation’s practice, this purpose is determined by assessing together factors such as whether the sale price was actually paid and the buyer’s ability to pay, the difference between the price shown in the land registry and the immovable’s true value on the date of the contract, whether the deceased had a just and reasonable reason for the sale, the relationship between the parties and the deceased, the place of the transferred asset within the deceased’s assets, and local customs. The fact that the deceased made a reasonable distribution during his or her lifetime that took all the heirs into account may be regarded as indicating that there was no purpose of diverting assets.
These facts are established through bank and land-registry records, on-site inspection, expert examination and witness statements. The statement of claim must indicate the evidence by which each fact is to be proved (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 119/1-f); as a rule, evidence not submitted in due time cannot subsequently be relied upon (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 145).
Proof: can an heir call a witness?
The general rule applies: unless the law provides otherwise, each party bears the burden of proving the existence of the facts on which it bases its right (Turkish Civil Code art. 6; Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 190/1). In other words, the heir asserting the collusion claim bears the burden of proof. The answer to whether a witness may be heard lies in the procedural rules on proof by document and their exceptions.
As a rule, proof by document is required. Legal transactions carried out for the creation, extinguishment, transfer, alteration, renewal, deferment, acknowledgement or performance of a right must be proved by document if their amount or value at the time they were carried out exceeds the statutory monetary limit (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 200/1). Witnesses are likewise not normally heard against a document: legal transactions of a nature that would eliminate or reduce the effect or evidential force of a document cannot be proved by witnesses, even if they fall below the monetary limit (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 201). The official deed executed at the land registry is also a document.
But the law provides a clear exception:
“d) Third parties’ collusion claims against legal transactions and documents.” (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure art. 203/1-d)
In practice, an heir who brings a claim based on his own right alleging that assets were diverted from the estate is considered a third party for the purposes of this subparagraph and may prove his case by any evidence, including witness testimony. This characterisation does not appear verbatim in the statute; it comes from case law. An heir cannot benefit from this facility if he asserts, by stepping into the shoes of the deceased, that a transaction made by the deceased himself was collusive.
Subparagraph (a) of the same article provides that witnesses may be heard in “transactions between descendants and ascendants, siblings, spouses, parents-in-law, and daughters-in-law and sons-in-law”. This subparagraph concerns the parties to the transaction: a transaction between the deceased and his child or sibling literally falls within its scope, but one with a transferee outside the family does not. The statute also provides that witnesses may be heard where the opposing party gives express consent (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 200/2) or where there is a beginning of proof (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 202).
The monetary limit is increased each year by the revaluation rate, and the amount at the date on which the legal transaction was made is taken as the basis (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Additional Art. 1, as amended by 4/6/2025 dated Law No. 7550). That is why no figure is given on this page.
Collusive Transfer by the Deceased or Action in Abatement?
The two are different actions and confusing them can lead to loss of rights. What the statute expressly regulates is abatement; collusion, on the other hand, is based on a general provision.
| Collusive Transfer by the Deceased claim | Action in Abatement | |
|---|---|---|
| Basis | Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 19 (general rule on collusion) + case law | Turkish Civil Code Art. 560 et seq.; for inter vivos dispositions, Turkish Civil Code Art. 565 |
| Assertion | The transaction is not genuine; it has the appearance of a sale | The transaction is genuine, but it impairs the reserved share |
| Who may bring it | Heirs; in practice, no reserved-share requirement is imposed | Heirs who have not received the value corresponding to their reserved shares (Turkish Civil Code Art. 560/1) |
| Outcome | Cancellation of the title deed and re-registration | Reduction of a disposition by the deceased that exceeds the portion he was free to dispose of (Turkish Civil Code Art. 560/1) |
| Time limit | None in the statute; in practice, it is not subject to a time limit | One year from learning of the impairment, and in any event ten years from the opening of the inheritance (from the date of opening in the case of wills) (Turkish Civil Code Art. 571/1) |
The gratuitous inter vivos dispositions subject to abatement are listed one by one in the statute; among them are “dispositions that are clearly made by the deceased with the intention of defeating the rules on reserved shares” (Turkish Civil Code Art. 565, subparagraph 4). Even if the right to bring an action in abatement is extinguished by lapse of time, the claim of abatement may always be raised by way of a defence (Turkish Civil Code Art. 571/3). If the person to whom a disposition subject to abatement has been made is in good faith, he is liable to return only what remains in his hands at the time the inheritance passes (Turkish Civil Code Art. 566/1). The reserved-share rates are set out on the how the reserved share is calculated page.
Is there a limitation period for Collusive Transfer by the Deceased?
The statute provides no period specific to this claim: Turkish Code of Obligations Art. 19 does not prescribe a period, and the Turkish Civil Code contains no forfeiture period relating to a collusion claim. In practice, an action for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration based on Collusive Transfer by the Deceased is not subject to a limitation period or forfeiture period; the reason is that a collusive transaction is regarded as void from the outset and does not become valid with the passage of time.
But the time limit for an action in abatement continues to run. If the collusion claim cannot be proved, for example if it transpires that the sale price was actually paid, the avenue of abatement may remain; however, the right to bring an action in abatement lapses upon expiry of one year from the date on which the impairment of the reserved share was learned of, and in any event after ten years (Turkish Civil Code Art. 571/1). For this reason, in practice, the two claims are put forward in the same statement of claim, with a principal–subsidiary relationship between them: the principal claim is cancellation of the title deed and re-registration on the ground of collusion, and, if that is dismissed, the subsidiary claim is abatement. The law calls this a claim in the alternative; the court may not examine the subsidiary claim unless it has dismissed the principal claim on the merits (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 111). If abatement has not been claimed, the court does not examine it of its own motion (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 26/1). If the abatement claim is added later by way of amendment, how the one-year period is to be calculated is disputed; an amendment may be made only once in the same action and until the end of the examination of evidence (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 176/2, Art. 177/1). It is therefore safer to put forward the abatement claim together with the principal claim from the outset.
Even if no time limit is running, time may work against the claimant: witnesses and documents from the relevant period may be lost, and the immovable property may change hands.
If the immovable is sold while the action is pending: interim measures and annotation in the land registry
A judgment for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration is not entered in the land registry before it becomes final (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 350/2, Art. 367/2). If the immovable is sold to another person in the meantime, the acquisition of a third party who acquires ownership in good faith by relying on the registration in the land registry is protected (Turkish Civil Code Art. 1023). A third party who knows or ought to know that the registration is defective cannot rely on that registration, however (Turkish Civil Code Art. 1024/1).
The way to prevent this is an interim measure: where there is concern that, owing to a change in the existing situation, obtaining the right will become significantly more difficult or impossible, the court may order an interim measure (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 389/1). Court decisions for the protection of disputed rights may be annotated in the land registry and may be asserted against persons who acquire rights over the immovable after the annotation (Turkish Civil Code Art. 1010). If implementation of the interim measure is not requested within one week of the pronouncement or notification of the decision, the measure lapses automatically (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 393/1); if the measure was granted before the action was brought, it likewise lapses if no action is brought within two weeks of the date on which its implementation was requested (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 397/1). Security and other details are provided on the cancellation of the title deed and re-registration action page.
If the immovable is nonetheless transferred after the action has been brought, the claimant may either continue the action against the transferee or convert the action against the transferor into an action for damages (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 125/1).
Which court, and where, should the action be brought?
Jurisdiction ratione materiae. The case is heard by the Civil Court of First Instance (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 2). Cancellation of the title deed and re-registration is not among the disputes for which applying to a mediator before filing the action is a condition of admissibility (Law No. 6325, Art. 18/B/1).
Jurisdiction ratione loci. In actions concerning a right in rem over immovable property or that may lead to a change in the holder of a right in rem, the court of the place where the immovable is situated has exclusive jurisdiction (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 12/1). The claim for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration falls within this scope. If the action concerns more than one immovable, it may be brought at the place where one of the immovables is situated with respect to the others as well (Turkish Code of Civil Procedure Art. 12/3).
A separate rule of exclusive jurisdiction applies to actions arising from inheritance: in actions such as the division of the estate and the annulment or abatement of testamentary dispositions, as well as all actions brought against heirs until the estate has been definitively divided, the court for the deceased’s last domicile has exclusive jurisdiction (CCP Art. 11/1). If the person who acquired the immovable is also an heir, the two rules of exclusive jurisdiction may literally overlap; in practice, actions for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration based on collusive transfer by the deceased are heard by the court of the place where the immovable is situated. If the immovable is in Alanya, the action is heard in Alanya even if the deceased lived in another province. If a claim of collusion is raised together with a claim in abatement, the competent court must be determined separately.
Frequently asked questions
My father sold the house to my sibling, but no payment was made. What can I do?
The allegation is that the sale recorded in the title deed does not reflect the parties’ true intention; the law requires that, when interpreting a contract, regard be had not to the words but to the true and common intention (TCO Art. 19/1). In practice, non-payment of the price is one of the facts considered when assessing whether there was an intention to deprive the heirs of assets. The allegation is advanced by seeking cancellation of the title deed and re-registration, and the burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation (TCC Art. 6, CCP Art. 190/1).
The title deed states that there was a sale. Can I prove the contrary by witnesses?
As a rule, witnesses may not be heard against the contents of a deed (CCP Art. 201). However, the law expressly provides that witnesses may be heard where third parties allege collusion (CCP Art. 203/1-d); in practice, an heir who brings an action based on his or her own right is regarded as a third party for this purpose.
Is there a limitation period for an action based on collusive transfer by the deceased?
The law does not prescribe a period specifically for this claim, and in practice the action is not subject to a limitation period. By contrast, the right to bring an action in abatement lapses one year after the date of knowledge and, in any event, after ten years (TCC Art. 571/1); for this reason, the claim in abatement is raised together with the collusion claim as a claim in the alternative (CCP Art. 111).
I do not have a reserved share; can I still bring an action?
Yes. In practice, any heir may raise a claim of collusion in proportion to his or her own share of the inheritance, whether or not he or she has a reserved share. The action in abatement, however, is available under the law only to heirs who have not received the equivalent of their reserved shares (TCC Art. 560/1).
Is evading the heirs the same as disinheritance?
No. Disinheritance is a testamentary disposition made by the deceased on grounds specified by law; details are provided on the disinheritance page. Collusion, on the other hand, is the allegation that a transfer made during the deceased’s lifetime was not genuine.
What happens if the person who acquired the house sold it to someone else?
The acquisition by a person who acquired the immovable in good faith in reliance on the entry in the title deed is protected (TCC Art. 1023); a person who knows or ought to know that the registration is defective cannot rely on that entry (TCC Art. 1024/1). For this reason, the action is also brought against the current owner, and it must additionally be proved that he or she was not acting in good faith. If the current owner acted in good faith, in practice the value of the immovable is sought from the first transferee.
Applicable legislation
Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 — Art. 19 (interpretation of contracts and collusive transactions), Art. 237 (formal requirements for the sale of immovable property), Art. 285 (definition of donation), Art. 288 (promise of donation), Art. 289 (donation by delivery) — mevzuat.gov.tr
Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 — Art. 6 (burden of proof), Art. 560 (conditions for the Action in Abatement), Art. 565 (dispositions subject to abatement), Art. 566 (obligation to return), Art. 571 (limitation periods), Art. 598 (certificate of inheritance), Art. 599 (acquisition of inheritance), Art. 611 (renunciation by an heir), Art. 640 (community of heirs), Art. 706 (legal transaction in the acquisition of ownership of immovable property), Art. 1010 (annotation restricting the power of disposition), Art. 1023 (against third parties in good faith), Art. 1024 (against third parties not in good faith), Art. 1025 (deletion and amendment in cases of irregular registration) — mevzuat.gov.tr
Turkish Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 — Art. 2 (jurisdiction of civil courts of first instance), Art. 11 (jurisdiction in actions arising from inheritance), Art. 12 (jurisdiction in actions arising from the immovable property itself), Art. 26 (principle that the court is bound by the relief sought), Art. 111 (alternative claims), Art. 119 (content of the statement of claim), Art. 125 (transfer of the subject matter of the action), Art. 145 (late submission of evidence), Art. 176–177 (amendment), Art. 190 (burden of proof), Art. 200 (documentary proof requirement), Art. 201 (prohibition on proof by witnesses against a deed), Art. 202 (beginning of evidence), Art. 203 (exceptions to the documentary proof requirement), Art. 350 and Art. 367 (effect of an appeal on enforcement), Art. 389 (conditions for interim measures), Art. 393 (implementation of interim measures), Art. 397 (procedures completing interim measures), Additional Art. 1 (increase of monetary limits) — mevzuat.gov.tr
Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes No. 6325 — Art. 18/B (mediation as a precondition for bringing an action in certain disputes) — mevzuat.gov.tr
Related pages
- Inheritance Law — parent page
- Action for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration
- How is the reserved share calculated?
- How is renunciation of inheritance effected?
- How is a certificate of inheritance obtained?
- Disinheritance and “disowning”
- Contractual waiver of inheritance
- Action for dissolution of co-ownership
This article is intended for general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice. As the circumstances of each case differ, you are advised to seek legal assistance from your attorney at law for your specific situation.