A person is generally free to transfer property during their lifetime. The fact that real estate was transferred to one child, another heir or a third party does not automatically mean that the transaction was unlawful.
A dispute may arise, however, where the deceased actually intended to make a gift but formally presented the transaction as a sale or another type of agreement in order to deprive heirs of their inheritance rights.
Turkish case law refers to this doctrine as muris muvazaası, broadly describing a sham or disguised transaction made by the deceased.
How Does Muris Muvazaası Occur?
In the classic situation, the deceased genuinely intends to transfer ownership but conceals the true nature of that transfer.
For example, a property intended as a gift may formally be recorded as a sale or as a lifetime-care agreement.
The central question is therefore not merely what appears in the title deed, but what the deceased actually intended.
A transfer recorded as a sale is not automatically a genuine sale. Conversely, transferring property to one heir does not by itself prove a sham transaction.
What Evidence Does the Court Consider?
Because the deceased’s actual intention is rarely documented directly, courts examine the circumstances surrounding the transfer.
Turkish Court of Cassation decisions consider factors such as the difference between the stated sale price and the property’s actual value, the purchaser’s financial ability to pay, whether the deceased had a reasonable reason for the transfer, family relationships and the ordinary course of events.
Witness testimony, bank records, title-deed records, historical property valuations and evidence concerning the relationship between the parties can therefore become important.
Who Can Bring a Claim?
Under established Court of Cassation case law and the Unification of Judgments Decision dated 1 April 1974, heirs whose inheritance rights have been affected may, where the requirements are satisfied, seek cancellation of the relevant title registration.
The doctrine is not restricted solely to heirs holding a statutory reserved share.
However, muris muvazaası should not be confused with a reduction claim protecting reserved inheritance shares. Depending on how the original transfer was structured, a different inheritance-law remedy may apply.
Is There a Limitation Period?
Established Court of Cassation case law generally treats classic title cancellation claims based on muris muvazaası as not being subject to an ordinary limitation or forfeiture period.
This does not mean that every inheritance-related claim can be brought indefinitely.
Different rules may apply where the dispute involves cadastral registration, reduction of testamentary dispositions, fraud or another legal basis. Correctly identifying the legal nature of the claim is therefore essential.
Can a claim be brought if the title deed says the property was sold?
Yes. A disguised gift formally recorded as a sale is one of the classic situations in which muris muvazaası may arise. The sham nature of the transaction and the intention to deprive heirs must nevertheless be established.
Is a low sale price sufficient?
No. A significant price difference may be relevant evidence, but the court considers all of the surrounding circumstances together.
Is every lifetime gift muris muvazaası?
No. The doctrine has specific requirements. An openly completed gift may instead raise different inheritance-law issues, including potential reduction claims.
Main Legal Basis
The doctrine has principally developed through the Court of Cassation’s Unification of Judgments Decision dated 1 April 1974, No. 1/2, together with subsequent Court of Cassation case law. Relevant statutory provisions include Article 706 of the Turkish Civil Code, Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations and Article 26 of the Land Registry Law.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only. Whether a particular lifetime transfer constitutes muris muvazaası requires an assessment of the specific transaction and available evidence.