The state of purposely created incompatibility between the will and the declaration is called Decency. There are two types of collusion;
Absolute collusion is that the parties enter into a contract ostensibly for the purpose of deceiving third parties, even if they do not actually have the Dec to conclude a contract by agreeing to create an appearance that does not comply with their true will, which does not lead to judgments and consequences between them.
A relative collusion is that the parties make a contract in accordance with their true will by concealing it with an apparent contract that does not comply with their will.
Muris collision is a relatively safe type of collision. In order to deprive the heir of the right to inherit, the bequeathed person performs the transfer by hiding his true purpose and explaining his will in accordance with the sale in the contract of sale of the real estate that he really wants to donate in the deed.
Collision is the case for bilateral transactions. There is no mention of collusion in death-related savings, which is a unilateral statement of will.
(“Since the articles in the dossier, the evidence on which the decision is based, the legal reasons and, in particular, muvazaa, are relevant for bilateral transactions, and there is no mention of muvazaa in the death savings that are a unilateral statement of will, there is no violation of the law in terms of the conditions in which the will is also contained, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are inappropriate.”T.C. COURT OF CASSATION 2. DEPARTMENT OF LAW E. 2006/19259 K. 2007/13908)
Persons who have a legal interest in filing a lawsuit as a result of a fraudulent collision and have the title of heir can file a lawsuit for cancellation and registration of the title deed. A false collision can be proven by any kind of legal evidence. (For example, the human relationship between the Decedent and the respondent, whether the respondent has purchasing power, whether he is in the usual course of events, etc. proof can be provided by such cases.)There is no statute of limitations in the case of cancellation and registration of title deeds to be filed as a result of a fraudulent collision, a lawsuit can be filed at any time.
The Supreme Court’s Decision on the issue is as follows;
T.C.YARGITAY2. IT’S THE LAW DEPARTMENT. 2007/2074K. 2007/4093T. 15.3.2007
ABSTRACT: The plaintiff’s request is not related to the criticism, but is related to the receivable at the rate of the share of inheritance based on the deceased agreement (due to the fact that the real estate was disposed of by the defendant before the case). The collected evidence of the defendant that the two of them lived together since 1996 as a partner with the other defendant in the case of the defendant by the immovable legator then officially their marriage, common-law lived in the sales order shown free of charge by collusive really where it is understood that the sales process has been apparent. In this case, it is necessary to judge that the claimant will receive the real estate at the rate of the plaintiff’s share of inheritance based on its real values at the time of disposal by the defendant, but the rejection of the request was not considered correct.
CASE: It was decided to approve the provision, the date, number, subject and parties of which are shown above, by the decree No. 6127-17427 of the Apartment dated 12.12.2006 and numbered 6127. The aforementioned decision of our Department was requested to be corrected, the documents were read, discussed and considered as necessary:
DECISION: Plaintiff; the testator (mother) Feriha passed away on 19.1.2005, he and his brother Halil remained as the legal heir, the testator left his residence No. 8 in apartment 59, registered on parcel 8, located in the Kahramanlar district of Izmir, on 12.8.2002; Stating that he transferred his real estate No. 1981 parcel in the village of Canakkale Kepez to his brother Halil’s unmarried wife Mehlike on 5.8.2002 by showing a sale, the transfer transaction was actually a donation, not a sale, no price was paid in return, the transaction was made in order to smuggle goods out of the inheritance, deprive the plaintiff of the right to inherit these real estate, and is based on the agreement, as the defendant Mehlike had to assert his right to receive these real estate shares at the rate of inheritance shares due to the fact that he later sold them to third parties, the bet is 60.000 YTL, which is currently deducted from the inheritance share due to the muvazaal transaction to reserve the rights to the excess.he asked the defendants to jointly and severally decide on its collection.
The defendant’s deputy requested the rejection of the case by informing that the real estate subject to the lawsuit was purchased by his client and that there was no consent to the transaction.
The case was dismissed by the court on the grounds that “…It could not be proved that Mehlike, the defendant in the third party situation, was successful in purchasing the real estate…”.
Upon the plaintiff’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the decision. In the decision of the Supreme Court to approve it, it was stated that ”…the bequeathed person’s savings are donations“, ”…but it cannot be proved that this donation was made with the intention of encroaching on the plaintiff’s reserved share…”.
The plaintiff has requested a correction of the decision.
The plaintiff’s request is not related to the criticism, but is related to the receivable at the rate of inheritance share based on the agreement of muris (due to the fact that the real estate was disposed of by the defendant before the case). Since 1996 the defendant of the defendant’s evidence collected as a partner with other mehlik Khalil, these two officially on 28.2.2004 their marriage to the defendant in the case of the immovable by the legator mehlike common-law lived in the sales order shown free of charge by collusive really where it is understood that the sales process has been apparent. In this case, it is necessary to judge that the claimant will receive the real estate at the rate of the plaintiff’s share of inheritance based on its real values at the time of disposal by the defendant, but the rejection of the request was not considered correct. However, since this aspect was overlooked during the first examination, the decision was upheld, but it was necessary to decide whether the plaintiff’s request to correct the decision would be overturned by the local court by removing the decision to approve our apartment’s decision.
CONCLUSION : Article 440/1-4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. in accordance with article 12 of the 12.12.2006 dated 2006/6127-17427 approval decision of our Department was canceled, the local court decision was OVERTURNED for the reason shown above, the decision fee for the preliminary correction of the appeal was returned to the plaintiff who deposited, on 15.03.2007 it was unanimously decided.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.