In Turkish property law, the person whose name appears in the land registry is normally treated as the legal owner of the property. However, a title deed is not always the final word. A property may have been registered in another person’s name because of a fiduciary arrangement, fraud, forgery, abuse of a power of attorney, sham transaction, inheritance dispute, invalid transaction or another legal defect. Depending on the circumstances, the person who claims the genuine right to the property may seek cancellation of the existing title and registration of the property in their own name through a title deed cancellation and registration action (tapu iptali ve tescil davası).
Under Article 705 of the Turkish Civil Code, ownership of immovable property is, as a general rule, acquired through registration in the land registry. Article 706 also requires agreements intended to transfer ownership of immovable property to comply with the legally prescribed official form. Therefore, simply paying the purchase price, financing the acquisition or possessing the property does not automatically make someone the legal owner. The legal basis behind the registration must be examined carefully.
The central question is therefore not simply “Who paid for the property?” but rather:
“Why was the property registered in someone else’s name, and what legal right does the claimant have to demand registration in their own name?”
1. Can Someone Be the “Real Owner” Even If Their Name Is Not on the Title Deed?
In practical terms, yes—but the expression “real owner” must be used carefully under Turkish law.
Because Turkish law is based heavily on the land registration system, a person who merely paid for a property cannot automatically claim ownership against everyone. Nevertheless, there may be circumstances in which the registered owner is legally obliged to transfer the property to another person or where the existing registration itself is legally defective.
Article 716 of the Turkish Civil Code is particularly important. It provides that a person who has a personal right to demand registration based on a legal ground capable of leading to the acquisition of ownership may request the court to transfer ownership by judgment if the registered owner refuses to perform the registration.
This provision forms one of the legal foundations for cases in which a person has a valid claim to a property but the registered owner refuses to transfer it voluntarily.
2. Property Purchased With One Person’s Money but Registered in Another Person’s Name
A common dispute arises where one person provides all or most of the purchase price, but the property is registered in the name of a relative, business partner, friend or trusted third party.
For example:
A foreign investor may finance the purchase of an apartment in Istanbul but have the title temporarily registered in the name of a Turkish acquaintance.
A parent may purchase property but register it in a child’s name for convenience.
Business partners may agree that a property will temporarily be held in one partner’s name.
A person experiencing financial or administrative difficulties may transfer or register property in someone else’s name with an agreement that it will later be returned.
In such cases, the payment documents are extremely important, but payment alone is normally not sufficient to establish ownership because the transfer of immovable property is subject to strict form and registration requirements under Turkish law.
The claimant must therefore identify the legal relationship explaining why the registered owner is obliged to return or transfer the property.
3. Fiduciary Transactions: Property Held “In Trust” for Another Person
One of the most important legal concepts in these disputes is the Turkish doctrine of the fiduciary transaction, known as an inançlı işlem.
A fiduciary transaction may exist where property is transferred to or registered in the name of one person with an understanding that the registered person will hold the property temporarily and later return or transfer it once a specified purpose has been achieved.
Although Turkish legislation does not contain a single comprehensive statutory regime for fiduciary ownership comparable to the trust systems of some common-law jurisdictions, Turkish courts have long recognised fiduciary transactions through established Court of Cassation jurisprudence.
The Court of Cassation continues to refer to the Joint Chambers Decision dated 5 February 1947, No. 20/6, particularly regarding the evidentiary requirements applicable to fiduciary agreements. Judicial decisions emphasise the importance of written evidence—or legally sufficient documentary evidence capable of constituting the beginning of proof—when such a relationship is alleged.
This means that documents such as payment receipts, bank transfers, signed agreements, written declarations, correspondence relating to the transaction and other documentary evidence can become decisive.
The structure of the transaction must nevertheless be analysed carefully. Merely saying, “I trusted him and put the property in his name,” does not necessarily establish a legally enforceable fiduciary relationship.
4. Fraudulent Registration and Forged Documents
A much stronger category of dispute arises where the title registration was obtained through fraud, forged documents or an unauthorised transaction.
Article 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that a registration based on a legally non-binding transaction or lacking a valid legal basis constitutes an unlawful or defective registration (yolsuz tescil). A person who knows or should know that the registration is defective cannot rely on that registration.
Article 1025 goes further and expressly permits a person whose real right has been harmed by such a registration to bring an action for correction of the land register.
Situations potentially falling within this category may include registrations based on:
- forged signatures,
- false powers of attorney,
- invalid contracts,
- transactions carried out without proper authority,
- fraudulent documents,
- legally void transfers,
- unauthorised dispositions by representatives.
Depending on the facts, criminal proceedings for forgery, fraud or similar offences may also exist alongside the civil property proceedings. However, the civil claim for title cancellation and registration must be structured according to the specific defect affecting the title.
5. Abuse of Power of Attorney
Another frequent scenario involves property transferred by an attorney or representative who has exceeded or abused the authority granted to them.
For example, a property owner may give a relative or professional representative a power of attorney authorising a sale. Instead of protecting the principal’s interests, the representative may sell the property to themselves, a relative or a cooperating third party at a nominal or clearly disadvantageous price.
Whether the transaction can be cancelled depends on issues including the scope of the power of attorney, the representative’s conduct, the circumstances of the sale and whether the person acquiring the property was aware—or should have been aware—of the abuse.
If collusion or bad faith can be demonstrated, cancellation and re-registration of the title may become possible.
6. Sham Transactions and Hidden Agreements
Turkish property disputes also frequently involve muvazaa, or simulation.
A transaction may appear on the land registry as a genuine sale although the parties never intended an actual sale, or the formal transaction may conceal an entirely different legal arrangement.
Inheritance disputes provide a particularly common example. A deceased person may ostensibly “sell” property to one heir although the true intention was to make a donation and deprive other heirs of their inheritance rights.
The legal consequences depend heavily on the precise type of simulation, the parties involved and the rights asserted by the claimant. Therefore, not every suspicious or low-price transfer can automatically be treated as a sham transaction.
7. The Importance of the Good-Faith Third Party
One of the greatest risks in a title deed dispute is that the person currently registered as owner may sell the property to another person before the dispute is resolved.
Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code contains one of the most important principles of the Turkish land registry system: a third party who relies in good faith on the land registry when acquiring ownership or another real right may, under the conditions laid down by law, have their acquisition protected.
By contrast, Article 1024 prevents a third party who knew or should have known that the registration was unlawful from relying on it.
This distinction can completely change the outcome of a case.
Suppose A’s property is unlawfully registered in B’s name.
If B still owns the property, A may have a strong cancellation claim.
If B transfers it to C, the situation becomes more complicated.
If C knew about the unlawful transaction, the claim may continue against C.
However, if C qualifies as a protected good-faith purchaser under Article 1023, recovering the property itself may become significantly more difficult and alternative compensation claims may have to be considered.
For this reason, speed is often critical in Turkish title deed litigation.
8. Why an Interim Injunction May Be Essential
Where there is a genuine risk that the registered owner will sell, mortgage or otherwise dispose of the property, the claimant may request an interim injunction (ihtiyati tedbir).
Article 389 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure permits interim protection where a change in the existing circumstances could make enforcement of the right substantially more difficult or impossible, or could cause serious damage or inconvenience. Turkish courts apply this mechanism in disputes involving contested property where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
In a title cancellation case, an injunction may therefore be requested to prevent further transfers or transactions concerning the disputed property during the proceedings.
Strategically, this can be just as important as filing the main action itself. A claimant who waits until the property has been transferred several times may face considerably more complicated litigation.
9. What Evidence Is Important?
Title cancellation litigation is highly evidence-driven.
Depending on the legal basis of the case, relevant evidence may include:
- current and historical land registry records,
- official deed documents,
- bank transfers showing who financed the purchase,
- purchase price receipts,
- written fiduciary agreements,
- powers of attorney,
- notarial documents,
- inheritance documents,
- company accounting records,
- correspondence between the parties,
- e-mails and electronic communications,
- tax records,
- evidence concerning possession and use of the property,
- witness evidence where procedurally admissible,
- expert examinations,
- criminal investigation files concerning forgery or fraud.
However, the evidentiary value of each item depends on the legal claim being asserted. In fiduciary transaction disputes in particular, Court of Cassation jurisprudence imposes significant importance on documentary proof.
A claimant should therefore avoid assuming that possession, payment of taxes or payment of the purchase price will by themselves establish ownership.
10. Which Court Has Jurisdiction?
Actions concerning ownership rights over immovable property are generally subject to the exclusive territorial jurisdiction of the court where the property is located. Article 12 of the Turkish Code of Civil Procedure expressly regulates jurisdiction for actions concerning rights in rem over immovable property or claims capable of changing ownership rights.
Depending on the nature of the dispute, a title cancellation and registration claim will generally be brought before the competent civil court, with both jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction determined according to the legal basis of the claim.
The petition must identify the property precisely, including its province, district, neighbourhood, block, parcel and—where applicable—independent section information.
11. What Can the Court Decide?
If the claimant proves that the existing registration cannot legally be maintained and establishes the right to registration, the court may order the existing title to be cancelled and the property to be registered in the claimant’s name.
Article 716 allows ownership to be transferred by judicial decision where a person with the relevant legal right is entitled to demand registration but the registered owner refuses. Article 1025 separately provides a remedy for correction of an unlawful land registration.
Depending on the case, the claimant may also pursue alternative or additional monetary compensation where restoration of the property itself is no longer legally possible.
12. Is Paying for the Property Enough?
One of the most important misconceptions in property disputes is:
“I paid for the house, therefore I am the owner.”
Under Turkish law, this argument is usually incomplete.
Immovable ownership is governed by formal rules. Article 705 makes registration the general method of acquiring ownership, while Article 706 and Article 237 of the Turkish Code of Obligations require official form for transactions intended to transfer ownership of immovable property.
Therefore, payment is powerful evidence of the economic relationship between the parties, but it must be connected to a legally recognised basis for demanding registration.
A successful case usually requires both:
a factual explanation of what actually happened, and
a legal explanation of why those facts require the title to be cancelled or transferred.
13. A Practical Example
Consider the following situation:
An investor sends EUR 300,000 to a trusted acquaintance in Turkey to purchase an apartment. Because of an administrative or practical concern, the apartment is temporarily registered in the acquaintance’s name. Messages between them show that the apartment belongs economically to the investor and will be transferred when requested.
Two years later, property prices rise dramatically and the registered owner refuses to transfer the apartment.
The investor should not simply file a claim stating that they paid EUR 300,000.
The lawyer must determine the legal character of the original arrangement, obtain the banking records, examine the land registry acquisition documents, analyse the communications between the parties and determine whether the case should be based on a fiduciary transaction, contractual registration claim or another legal ground.
At the same time, if there is a risk of the apartment being sold, an interim injunction should be considered immediately.
The difference between a properly structured case and a general allegation of “the property is actually mine” may determine the entire outcome.
Conclusion: The Title Deed Is Powerful, but It Is Not Untouchable
The Turkish land registry system provides strong protection to registered ownership because certainty in property transactions is essential. Nevertheless, Turkish law also provides remedies where a registration lacks a valid legal basis or where the registered owner is legally required to transfer the property to another person.
A property registered in someone else’s name may potentially be recovered through a title deed cancellation and registration action, particularly where the registration results from a fiduciary arrangement, invalid transaction, fraud, forgery, abuse of authority or another recognised legal ground. Articles 716 and 1023–1025 of the Turkish Civil Code are particularly important in determining whether ownership can be judicially transferred and whether subsequent third-party acquisitions are protected.
The decisive issues are normally the legal reason for the registration, the available evidence, the existence of subsequent transfers and the good or bad faith of third parties.
For this reason, anyone claiming that a property registered in another person’s name actually belongs to them should have the complete land registry history, acquisition documents, payment records, powers of attorney and communications reviewed before proceedings are initiated.
Most importantly, where there is a possibility that the property may be sold to a third party, legal action should be evaluated without delay. Once a protected good-faith third party enters the chain of ownership, recovering the property itself can become substantially more difficult under the Turkish land registry system.
No Responses