The inheritor assigns his immovable to a heir or third person of his choice, depriving other heirs of his inheritance. As a matter of fact, there is no difference between the title deed office and the price actually paid.

Persons who have legal interest in claiming as a result of the Muris collusion and who have the status of heir are entitled to file a cancellation and registration.

In the case of the cancellation and registration of the deed, which was opened based on the Muris collusion, the subject of investigation is the real will of the author. The will of Murism can also be for sale. In determining this matter, the financial position of the muris, the inheritance of the inherited heir or the third party are the first issues to be investigated.
The following criteria in the decisions of the Supreme Court are as follows;

– traditions of the region (if there is a general belief that girls will not take a share from the estate)

– Social tendencies

– Whether there is a just and reasonable reason for the contractor to make the contract

– The economic power of the defendant

– The economic power of the inheritor

– The difference between the sales price and the actual price

– Family relations

As a result of the Muris collusion, the cancellation and registration of the title deed is not subject to the statute of limitation and the time limitation. This claim can always be asserted without being subject to a lowering period after the deceased’s death. The cancellation and registration of the deed, which will be opened as a result of the Muris collusion, can be proved by any evidence according to the established case-law decisions.

The decision of the Court of Cassation is as follows;

T.C.YARGITAY1. LAW OF LAW. 2014/18830. 2017 / 1517T. 28/03/2017
Indir DECISION: The case concerned the cancellation of the title deed and the registration request based on the legal reason for the muris agreement.

The plaintiffs, who inherited from the inheritors of his grandfathers ılan who left the common heritage, assigned the warehouse number 1 warehouse number 1 on the land numbered 1323 and the parcel No. 1323 to the defendant grandchild u and showed the sale to the defendant…, for the assignment by the mothers an the case was rejected, but the appeal stage mothers miras’ s rejection of the reason for rejection of the reason for the rejection of the inheritance by the muris, claiming that the right to open the case, arguing that the assignment is defective, the contention of the contentious parts of the dispute with the cancellation of the title of the share of inheritance was asked to be registered.

The defendant, argued that the purchase of immovable property for 22,000 euros, and that the lawyer sold the immovable property to his mother due to resentment of his mother.

The court decided to refuse the case on the grounds that the claim could not be proved.

The contents of the file and the evidence collected, the subject of the lawsuit 1323 Island 61 numbered parcel no. 1 of the warehouse no 2/6 share the entire number of the dwelling of the defendant grandmother eki pars to the record is fixed on 17/09/2004.

As known; The muvazaa, which is defined as aza muris collusion ü in practice and teaching, is the nature of the muvazaa type. The inheritor in this collusion really wants to make a contract and to transfer the title deed. In order to deprive his heirs of his inheritance rights, however, he disguises his real purpose by deferring the deed of immovable he really wishes to donate in the formal contract to the deed in accordance with the contract of sale or sales until he dies.

In this case, since the apparent Convention does not comply with the real will of the parties, as explained in the Decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Decision of Combining the Case-law No. 1.4.1974 dated 1/2, the secret donation contract is the Turkish Civil Code (TMK) 706. The Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK) 237. (In accordance with the Code of Obligations (CBT) 213.) and deprived of the conditions of the provisions of Article 26 of the Land Registry Law, all the heirs with the right to inheritance, whether or not they have a hidden share, can file a lawsuit to determine the invalidity of the official contract and request the cancellation of the registered deed registration.

It should be noted immediately; The fact that such disputes can be solved in a healthy, just and correct way depends on the fact that the real direction of the assignment to the defendant is to reveal the real will and purpose of the inheritance in a way that will not leave any hesitation. Since it is often difficult to identify and clarify the real will and purpose of an internal problem, it is of utmost importance that the evidence in this direction be gathered together and properly evaluated. For this purpose, the customs and traditions of the country and the region, the social trends, the ordinary flow of events, whether there is a justified and reasonable reason for the inheritance of the inheritance, whether or not the respondent has the purchasing power, the difference between the real value at the date of sale and the contract, There is a necessity in making use of such facts as human relations.

As for the concrete incident, the mother of the murderer and the mother of the plaintiff 23 had a pre-enmity between him and this was based on evidence as the evidence by the plaintiff dav dated 28/12/2004 and numbered 2003/218 E 2004/923 with the letter “Murisin, daughter” i can be understood from the betrayal of the inheritance through the testament dated 08/02/2005, and it is also based on the evidence as şekl 1. Muris wife of the Court of First Instance heard in the file numbered 2008/178 E; murisin, girls ğı tanı due to the fact that the case has been transferred to the independent departments no. 1 and no. 2 free of charge, the plaintiff witnessed in the file at the hand of the plaintiff; It is understood that the murist does not know that he is saying that he is a real trading agent and that there is no need to file a claim that there is a need to sell the goods. Therefore, when the issues are evaluated as a whole, it is understood that the assignment is for the purpose of malicious purposes.

When this is the case, the case should be accepted by considering the case of the case of muvazaa, it is wrong to make a written decision in the form of a misconception.

CONCLUSION: The plaintiff’s appeal is in favor of the reasoned appeal. According to Article 428 of HUMK No. 1086, with the acceptance of the provision (by the provisional Article 3 of the Law no. 6100), the Appeals Appeals Agency will be issued with the right of appeal. It was decided unanimously on 28.03.2017 to withdraw the attorney’s fee from the appeal, and to return the advance proceedings to the appellant.