Turkish 
English 
Russian 
Collusion by the deceased (muris muvazaası) is where the deceased, intending to divert assets away from certain heirs, conceals their true intention and hides a transfer recorded at the land registry behind an apparent sale or a lifetime maintenance-until-death agreement. Pursuant to the Unification of Case Law Decision No. 1/2 dated 01.04.1974, in such transfers the apparent transaction is deemed void for lack of correspondence of intent, while the concealed gift is deemed void for lack of the required form.
This guide comprehensively addresses, in Antalya, the legal nature of title-deed cancellation and re-registration actions based on collusion by the deceased, the source of the right to sue, the allocation of the burden of proof, the heirs' freedom of evidence, the indicia of collusion established by the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), and the legal arguments against care–gratitude defenses, in the light of current decisions of the Assembly of Civil Chambers and the 1st Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation.
The Legal Nature of Collusion by the Deceased and the Unification Decision Dated 01.04.1974
Collusion by the deceased refers to title-deed transfers made by the deceased in order to deprive some heirs of their inheritance rights, which appear to be a sale or a maintenance-until-death agreement but in reality carry an intention to make a gift. One of the most frequently invoked causes of action in Turkish inheritance law, this institution is defined in doctrine and judicial decisions as a type of relative (qualified) collusion. The Unification of Case Law Decision No. 1/2 dated 01.04.1974 constituted a turning point in the Turkish legal system in terms of protecting the right of ownership, by granting all heirs whose inheritance rights are impaired the right to bring a title-deed cancellation and re-registration action against such transfers.
Collusion by the deceased is a type of relative (qualified) collusion whereby the deceased, with the intent of diverting assets away from their heirs, conceals their true intention to make a gift behind an apparent sale or maintenance-until-death agreement, and which is deemed void due to the deliberate discrepancy between intention and declaration. The invalidity of the transaction stems both from the apparent contract's failure to reflect the true intention and from the concealed gift's failure to satisfy the official form requirement.
The Distinction Between the Apparent and the Concealed Transaction
At the root of collusion-by-the-deceased disputes lie two distinct legal transactions. The apparent transaction, most often a sale or a maintenance-until-death agreement, is void because it does not reflect the parties' true intention, owing to the deliberate discrepancy between the declaration of intent and the true intention. The concealed transaction, the gift, is deemed void even where it accords with the parties' true intention, because it contravenes the requirement that contracts providing for the transfer of immovable ownership be made in official form before a land registry official.
Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, Decision dated 24.03.2016, File No. 2015/17970, Decision No. 2016/3595The decision expressly held that the collusion defined in practice and doctrine as collusion by the deceased is, by its nature, a type of relative (qualified) collusion. In such disputes, the first determination to be made by the court is what the actual transaction on which the parties' intentions converged was, and whether that transaction was carried out in accordance with the statutory form requirements.
Lack of Form and the Invalidity of the Transaction
The invalidity of the concealed gift contract stems from its lack of the official form conditions provided for in Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law (Tapu Kanunu). Declaring an intention to sell in the official deed while in fact making a gift in the background renders the concealed transaction void for lack of form. In title-deed cancellation actions heard before the Antalya Courts of First Instance, this two-layered invalidity forms the fundamental legal basis of the action.
Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, Decision dated 01.06.2022, File No. 2022/739, Decision No. 2022/4360It was held that, because the apparent contract does not correspond to the parties' true intentions and the concealed gift contract lacks the form conditions provided for in Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code, Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law, the heirs may demand cancellation of the title deed.
Protection of the Right of Ownership and Wrongful Registration
Where collusion exists, the registration entry in the land registry also takes on the character of wrongful registration. Under the principle of causality, one of the fundamental principles of Turkish property law, registration must be based on a valid legal cause. Since there is no valid legal cause in a collusive transaction, the land registry entry becomes wrongful from the outset. The Unification Decision dated 01.04.1974 protected the right of ownership to the fullest extent by granting the heir the possibility of recovering not merely their reserved share, but the entire statutory inheritance share in the immovable transferred through the collusive transaction.
The Source of the Right to Sue and the Heir's Position as a Third Party
The most distinctive feature setting collusion-by-the-deceased actions apart from other collusion actions is the legal source of the right to sue. Under general rules of law, heirs sue in their capacity as successors of the deceased, relying on the deceased's rights; in collusion by the deceased, however, the heir sues in order to protect their own inheritance right against the collusive transaction carried out by the deceased personally. For this reason, in such actions the heir is not the successor of the deceased but a third party who is the victim of the collusive transaction.
An Action Based on a Personal Right, Not on Succession
The heir's position as a third party provides a vital advantage in terms of the law of evidence. Had the action been based on succession, the heir would have been subject to the rule of proof by written evidence (by deed) alone against the written contract made by the deceased. In this type of action based on a personal right, however, the heir has the possibility of proving the allegation of collusion by any and all evidence, including witnesses.
Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, Decision dated 13.11.2017, File No. 2015/2037, Decision No. 2017/6388The decision held that all heirs whose inheritance rights are infringed may bring an action asserting that the apparent contract of sale is collusive and that the concealed gift contract does not satisfy the form condition provided for in the statute. The right to sue does not rest on succession but arises from a right belonging to the heir personally, against whom the wrongful transaction was carried out.
Pursuant to the Unification Decision dated 01.04.1974, being an heir holding a reserved share is not a precondition for bringing a collusion-by-the-deceased action. Whether or not they hold a reserved share, every heir whose inheritance rights are impaired may demand title-deed cancellation and re-registration in proportion to their own share. This right is a right to sue granted directly to the heir personally.
The Allocation of the Burden of Proof: Article 6 TCC and Article 190 CCP
In collusion-by-the-deceased actions the burden of proof lies on the claimant heir. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu) and Article 190/1 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), the party who derives a right in their favor from the legal consequence attached to an alleged fact must prove that fact. The heir must set out before the court, with concrete data at a level sufficient to form a full conviction, that the deceased's actual intention was not a sale, that the transaction shown in the land registry was merely an apparent transaction, and that it in fact carried an intent to divert assets.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 31.05.2023, File No. 2021/488, Decision No. 2023/540The decision expressly held that, pursuant to Article 6 TCC and Article 190/1 CCP, the claimant party asserting that the deceased's true intention and purpose in the transfer was to divert assets away from the heir bears the obligation to prove this point. The burden of proof is the cornerstone of the action, and failure to discharge this burden results in the dismissal of the action on the merits.
The Heirs' Freedom of Evidence as Third Parties
The heirs' position as third parties grants them a freedom of evidence in the nature of an exception to the obligation to prove a deed by a deed. Heirs are not required to submit written evidence to prove the deceased's concealed intention and intent to divert assets. They may rely on any and all indicia, such as witness statements, bank records, social and economic status investigations, land registry record examinations, health reports, and intra-family correspondence.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 09.10.2024, File No. 2023/270, Decision No. 2024/507It was held that, because the heirs bringing the action are outside the contract between the deceased and the defendant, they are in the position of third parties, and that they may therefore prove their allegations by any and all evidence, including witnesses. This freedom forms the backbone of the evidentiary process in collusion disputes where the inner intention is concealed.
Freedom of evidence does not mean that abstract, hearsay-based witness accounts will suffice for the court. Witness statements must rest on concrete facts involving place, time, and a sequence of events, and the witness must have personally observed the deceased's intra-family conduct; otherwise the action is dismissed (Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, Decision dated 07.10.2020, File No. 2018/5483, Decision No. 2020/4858).
Indicia of Collusion in the Light of the Court of Cassation's Criteria
In order to ascertain the true intention within the deceased's inner world, the Court of Cassation has developed a series of objective criteria that must be examined in the concrete case. Although these criteria do not eliminate the burden of proof itself, they are assessed by the judge as factual presumptions. No single criterion proves collusion on its own; however, when assessed as a whole, they render the deceased's true intention visible.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 24.09.2025, File No. 2024/400, Decision No. 2025/554It was emphasized that, given the difficulty of ascertaining and clarifying the true, concealed intention and purpose, which is an internal matter, it is of great importance that the evidence to this effect be gathered in full and assessed together and correctly. The decision also accepts that the immovable remaining at the deceased's disposal even after the transfer is a strong indicium showing that ownership was not in fact transferred.
| Indicium of Collusion | Fact Examined by the Court | Legal Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Price Difference | The price shown in the land registry versus the actual market value at the date of transfer | Insufficient on its own; a strong indicium together with other evidence |
| The Deceased's Financial Situation | Bank deposits, pension, rental income, health coverage | If prosperous, a presumption that there was no need to sell |
| The Defendant's Purchasing Power | Social-economic status investigation, tax and bank records | If insufficient, a factual presumption that the transaction was a gift |
| The Flow of Money | Bank receipts, account movements, the return of the money | If there is no flow or if it returned, a finding of "hand-to-hand collusion" |
| Use After Transfer | The deceased continuing to reside in the immovable, collecting rent | Indicates that ownership was not in fact transferred |
| Intra-Family Relations | Hostility among heirs, excessive trust shown to the defendant | The moral element of the intent to divert assets |
The Price Difference and Its Insufficiency on Its Own
A gross difference between the sale price declared in the land registry and the immovable's actual market value at the date of transfer is the most concrete indicium of collusion by the deceased. In the Antalya real estate market, the rapid rise of current values in tourism-intensive areas causes the gulf between the prices in the land registry and actual values to become particularly pronounced in this region. However, the Court of Cassation consistently emphasizes that the price difference alone is not sufficient to prove collusion and must be supported by other collateral evidence.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 14.10.2020, File No. 2017/1265, Decision No. 2020/764It was accepted that a gross difference between the sale price shown in the official deed and the actual value of the flats cannot, on its own, be proof of the existence of collusion; but that, when all the evidence and objective facts are assessed together, it is an indicator of the existence of collusion. It was emphasized that a deceased with substantial assets and income cannot be said to have had a great need or a justified reason of a kind requiring them to sell the immovable.
The Defendant's Purchasing Power and Scrutiny of the Flow of Money
The defendant's economic situation plays a key role in concretizing the allegation of collusion. If the person who acquired the immovable did not have the financial means to pay the price in question, this constitutes a strong factual presumption that the transaction was a gift. Bank records offer indisputable certainty in tracing the flow of money: if no sum passed from the defendant's account to the deceased's account on or around the date of the transfer in the land registry, or if the sum that did pass returned to the defendant within a short time, this is the clearest proof of the collusive transaction termed "hand-to-hand collusion."
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 08.12.2022, File No. 2020/631, Decision No. 2022/1710In the light of the findings that the defendant was a housewife, that according to the social-economic status investigation her economic situation was insufficient to acquire the 1/2 share of the immovable for consideration, and that the defendant paid no price for the transfer, it was held that the transaction was collusive. Proving the insufficiency of the defendant's purchasing power constitutes a strategic knockout point for the claimant bearing the burden of proof.
Local Customs and the Rejection of a Gender-Based Presumption
The Court of Cassation regards it as necessary, in determining collusion, to make use of the customs and traditions of the country and the region, of social tendencies, and of the ordinary course of events. However, it has been clarified through judicial precedent that the tendency, encountered in some regions, of diverting assets away from daughters does not on its own create a presumption of collusion, and that each case must be proved on its own particular facts.
Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 2nd Civil Chamber, Decision dated 22.02.2017, File No. 2017/100, Decision No. 2017/149It was emphasized that there is no basis for speaking of a nationwide, commonly known fact that collusive transfers are made in order to divert assets where the heir is a daughter, and that an abstract gender-based presumption is not sufficient to prove collusion. In each case, the concrete intra-family dynamics and human relations must be separately examined.
Legal Arguments Against Care and Gratitude Defenses
The defense most frequently invoked by the defendant in collusion-by-the-deceased actions is the assertion that the transfer was not a sale but was made out of the deceased's feeling of gratitude for the care and support provided to them. In some circumstances the Court of Cassation may find this defense justified and may accept the care service as "consideration" (semen). However, this defense does not provide absolute protection in every case; whether the deceased actually had a genuine need for care and whether the care service was provided within the framework of a statutory obligation are scrutinized meticulously.
Court of Cassation, Assembly of Civil Chambers, Decision dated 11.10.2023, File No. 2022/595, Decision No. 2023/945It was accepted that, where it is understood that the deceased acted out of the feeling of gratitude created by the care and support provided for many years to themselves and their spouse, together with the thought and trust that this care would continue in the future, the transfer made rested on a justified reason and could not be deemed collusive.
The claimant heir may rebut the defense by establishing that the deceased had a regular income (pension, rental income, etc.), that their health expenses were covered by the social security institution, and that there was no financial necessity requiring them to transfer an immovable for care. Moreover, if the care service was provided within the framework of a statutory obligation under Article 364 TCC, transferring the most valuable immovable in return for this service goes beyond the defense and points to an intent to divert assets.
The Practical Process in Collusion-by-the-Deceased Actions in Antalya
The tourism-oriented structure of the Antalya real estate market leads to rapid increases in immovable values and to a concentration of collusion allegations in intra-family transfer transactions. Seasonal residences, sea-view plots, and commercial immovables in tourism areas can turn into serious inheritance disputes when the deceased wishes to transfer them to some heirs during their lifetime. Since in these actions the court of the place where the immovable is located has jurisdiction, the action is brought before the Antalya Courts of First Instance; land registry records, the social-economic status investigation, and bank records are obtained from the Antalya Land Registry Directorate and the relevant institutions, and evidence management is conducted accordingly. The technical complexity of the process makes obtaining professional support from experienced lawyers registered with the Antalya Bar Association more critical than ever.
Frequently Asked Questions About Collusion by the Deceased and Title-Deed Cancellation Actions
What is collusion by the deceased and what transactions does it cover?
Collusion by the deceased consists of title-deed transfers made by the deceased in order to deprive some heirs of their inheritance rights, concealing their true intention to make a gift behind an apparent sale or a maintenance-until-death agreement. In this transaction, which is a type of relative (qualified) collusion, the apparent contract is deemed void for lack of correspondence of intent, and the concealed gift contract is deemed void for lack of the official form.
What does the Unification of Case Law Decision dated 01.04.1974 mean?
The Unification of Case Law Decision No. 1/2 dated 01.04.1974 held that all heirs whose inheritance rights are impaired may bring a title-deed cancellation and re-registration action against collusive immovable transfers made by the deceased in order to divert assets away from their heirs. The decision grants every heir, whether or not they hold a reserved share, the right to sue in proportion to their own share, and this right rests not on succession but on the heir's personal right.
Which heirs may bring a collusion-by-the-deceased action?
Whether or not they hold a reserved share, all statutory and appointed heirs whose inheritance rights are impaired may bring a title-deed cancellation and re-registration action based on collusion by the deceased. In these actions the heirs act not in their capacity as successors of the deceased, but in the position of third parties who are the victims of the collusive transaction. This legal characterization gives rise to the right to sue from a personal right belonging to the heir themselves.
Who bears the burden of proof in a title-deed cancellation and re-registration action?
The burden of proof lies on the claimant heir pursuant to Article 6 TCC and Article 190/1 CCP. The party asserting that the deceased's true intention and purpose in the transfer was to divert assets away from the heir must prove this point with concrete evidence. Failure to discharge the burden of proof results in the dismissal of the action on the merits.
Can heirs prove the allegation of collusion by witnesses?
Yes. Because heirs are not parties to but victims of the collusive transaction, they are in the position of third parties and may prove their allegations by any and all evidence, including witnesses. However, witness statements must rest not on abstract, hearsay-based accounts but on concrete facts involving place, time, and a sequence of events, and the witnesses must have personally observed the deceased's intra-family conduct.
Is the price difference alone sufficient to prove collusion?
No. A gross difference between the price shown in the land registry and the immovable's actual value does not, on its own, suffice to prove collusion. The Court of Cassation regards it as necessary to assess the price difference together with other objective criteria (the deceased's financial situation, the defendant's purchasing power, bank records, use after transfer, intra-family relations). When all these facts are assessed as a whole, the existence of collusion can be established.
Is a transfer made out of care and gratitude deemed collusive?
Where the deceased was genuinely in need of care and the defendant provided care and support to them over many years, the Court of Cassation may not deem the transfer made out of gratitude to be collusive. However, if the deceased had a regular income, had health coverage, and the care service was provided as a statutory obligation under Article 364 TCC, the transfer of the most valuable immovable goes beyond this defense and points to an intent to divert assets.
Related service page: Antalya inheritance lawyer
