Table of Contents

• Can a Power of Attorney Really Be Used to Steal My Property in Turkey?
• What Legal Action Can Recover My Property?
• Why Does "Good Faith" Decide Whether You Get Your Property Back?
• What Signs Show a Buyer Was Not Acting in Good Faith?
• How Do I Prove My Agent Breached Their Duty of Loyalty and Care?
• What Are the Steps to File a Title Deed Cancellation Lawsuit?
• Is There a Deadline to File This Lawsuit?
• What Should I Do Right Now If I Suspect Fraud?
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Precedent Decision (Turkish Court of Cassation)

ℹ️ The Governing Rule

Turkish Civil Code, Art. 1023: A third party who, in good faith, acquires ownership or another right in rem based on the land registry record is protected in that acquisition.

Turkish Civil Code, Art. 1024: If a right in rem was registered defectively, a third party who knew or should have known this cannot rely on that registration. A registration based on a non-binding legal transaction, or lacking a valid legal cause, is defective.

✅ What Courts Weigh Most

A single factor is rarely decisive on its own. Courts look at the combination — the more of these signals that appear together, the stronger the case that the buyer was not acting in good faith.

⚠️ Important Warning

A title deed cancellation claim based on this kind of fraud is not subject to a statute of limitations under Turkish law, because it rests on a defective registration. However, once the property has genuinely passed to a good-faith buyer, cancellation may no longer be available, and any compensation claim against your agent will be subject to ordinary limitation periods. Delay works against you — the sooner you act, the more transfer chains you can still stop.

✅ What You Should Do Next

If you suspect a power of attorney was abused, acting quickly is what protects your chances of recovering the property before it changes hands again. Maya Avukatlık Bürosu can review your file and advise on a title deed cancellation lawsuit. For guidance tailored to your situation, contact us here.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case must be assessed on its own specific facts. Please consult a qualified lawyer before taking any legal action.

Turkish Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Chamber, decision dated 08.04.2026, Case No. 2025/4452, Decision No. 2026/2750.

The lawsuit concerns a claim for cancellation of the title deed and re-registration based on abuse of a power of attorney, or, in the alternative, compensation.

Plaintiff's counsel stated that the plaintiff is a Jordanian national; that when the plaintiff came to [the region] for a holiday, he decided to buy a house there; that he met the defendant, the owner of a real estate agency, in this way; that the defendant gained the plaintiff's trust; that once a suitable apartment was found, in order to persuade the plaintiff to have the purchase and the land registry transactions carried out — and the post-transfer matters handled after the plaintiff returned to his own country — the plaintiff granted the defendant a power of attorney on 10.06.2016; that when the plaintiff returned home, he left the defendant USD 7,000 to be used as a deposit; that the defendant found a suitable apartment, and following the plaintiff's transfer of funds by wire, on 20.10.2016 an independent section (apartment) was registered in the plaintiff's name; that while the plaintiff was abroad, the defendant rented out the apartment and sent the rent to the plaintiff, and continued doing so even after the property had already been sold; that when the plaintiff and his spouse came on holiday in June 2018, since a tenant was in the apartment, they contacted the defendant, and once the tenant vacated they spent their holiday there and, for that reason, did not suspect the defendant; that they again planned a holiday for 14.06.2019 and informed the defendant of their arrival 2-3 weeks in advance; that on 13.06.2019 the defendant told the plaintiff via WhatsApp that, because of debts of his own, he had transferred the apartment to third parties; that since things had not gone as planned, the property now carried mortgages and attachments; that the plaintiff could reclaim it within two months by paying these off; that the defendant said he had no choice but to flee; that upon investigating the land registry, the plaintiff learned that, without his knowledge, the property had first been transferred to a defendant on 14.12.2017, then shortly afterward to another defendant on 21.02.2018, and finally, on 02.08.2018, to a defendant company whose authorized representative was the original agent; that in a phone call, the agent admitted the situation, said he and the buyer were friends, said the buyer was planning to buy a car and, after taking out a loan, had promised to pay it off within three months, and that this was the basis for the transaction; that no payment whatsoever had been made for the house; that the buyer claimed he too had been deceived by the agent; that, on the promise the loan debt would be settled, he transferred the property free of charge to the defendant company; that after speaking with the defendants, all of them confirmed this account, said they had been deceived by the agent, and denied any connection with his offenses; that even after the transfer to third parties, the agent kept sending rent to the plaintiff so the plaintiff would not realize what had happened, which the plaintiff argued revealed the defendants' intent; that, acting as attorney for the defendant company, one of the defendants entered into a sale agreement dated 27.05.2019 with a third party, in the presence of a witness, and received TL 30,000 from that third party as well; that the defendant company's representative was also aware of this agreement; that the property was now encumbered with a mortgage from a loan taken out by two of the defendants, plus two attachments totaling EUR 30,000 and interest arising from the current owner's own rent debt; and that the plaintiff was effectively being forced to pay debts that had nothing to do with him. On these grounds, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the share registered in the name of the defendant company and its re-registration in the plaintiff's name, or, failing that, compensation.

Counsel for one of the defendants stated that his client had purchased the property at issue from another defendant on 21.02.2018; that his client had never in any way known the plaintiff; that he had known the co-defendant for 5-6 years as a close friend of his brother-in-law, whom he occasionally went fishing with; that he did not know the other defendant; that he knew the defendant company because he had worked there for three months; that, because he trusted and believed the co-defendant, he had taken out a 120-month mortgage loan from a bank on 20.02.2018; that the co-defendant paid the loan installments regularly for one year but then stopped paying entirely; and on these grounds argued that the plaintiff's claim was unjust and without legal basis and should be dismissed.

The Court of First Instance held that the agent and the co-defendant were friends; that all of the defendants operated in the same industry and had a degree of closeness to one another; that witness testimony established the defendant company had received the property on a fiduciary basis; that the defendants were in a position to know, and could have known, one another's circumstances; that in lawsuits based on abuse of a power of attorney, a gross discrepancy between the price stated in the deed and the property's actual, determined value gives rise to a presumption of abuse of the power of attorney; that, given the multiple-fold difference between the registered sale price and the property's real value, the agent could not produce concrete and convincing evidence that he had paid the plaintiff sale proceeds in that amount; that the sales at issue were carried out one after another within a short span of time; that it was contrary to the ordinary course of life for the defendant company to genuinely purchase a mortgaged property for that amount; that the agent had not acted with the care and loyalty required in exercising the power of attorney; that the other defendants were also in a position to know, and should have known, of this situation; and that the defendants acted jointly and in cooperation with one another. On the ground that the agent had abused the power of attorney, the court ruled to accept the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of title and registration. Following a timely appeal by counsel for one of the defendants, the Regional Court of Appeal held that the transfers had been carried out, using the power of attorney obtained from the plaintiff, in cooperation among the defendants; that the defendants worked in the same line of business; that no evidence had been submitted showing the price had actually been paid; and that, within the scope of the appeal, no violation of procedure or law was found in the first-instance judgment. The appeal was accordingly dismissed on the merits pursuant to Article 353-1-b-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was appealed on points of law by counsel for one of the defendants. Following a preliminary review of finality, time limits, admissibility, and other procedural matters, the appeal petition was accepted, the report of the Examining Judge was heard, and the case file was reviewed.

The decision under review on points of law was found, having regard to the parties' claims and defenses, the evidence relied upon, the applicable rules of law, the requirements for admissibility, and the rules of procedure and evidence, to be in accordance with procedure and law; the grounds raised in the appeal were not found to require reversal. Accordingly, it was unanimously decided, as final, on 08.04.2026: that the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal be AFFIRMED pursuant to Article 370/1 of Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure; that the outstanding affirmation fee of TL 32,245.73 be collected from the appealing defendant; and that the file be returned to the Court of First Instance, with a copy sent to the Regional Court of Appeal.