Short answer
A property transfer made through an abuse of a power of attorney may be challenged. Where the property has passed to another purchaser, that purchaser’s position must also be assessed. In the decision examined here, the Court of Cassation upheld cancellation because the representative’s misuse of authority and the final buyer’s lack of good faith had been established. The result depended on the evidence in that case.
The dispute: alleged deception, an unpaid price and successive transfers
The owner alleged that a power of attorney had been obtained by deception, ostensibly for banking matters, and then used to transfer property. The allegations included non-payment of the price and rapid successive transfers.
The lower court found that the power of attorney had been abused and that the later buyer was not acting in good faith. The connection between the final buyer and the representative, who was subject to criminal proceedings, formed part of the court’s assessment. The names and identifying details of those involved are omitted here.
What the Court of Cassation decided
On 23 February 2016, the First Civil Chamber upheld the cancellation judgment. In evaluating the final purchaser’s position, it concluded that the purchaser could not benefit from Article 1023:
Unofficial English translation:
“could not benefit from the protection of Article 1023”.
Under Articles 1023 and 1024 of the Turkish Civil Code, protection for a good-faith acquisition does not extend to someone who knew, or should have known, that the underlying registration was defective. The final buyer’s bad faith was therefore material to the cancellation outcome.
This was an affirmance of the cancellation judgment, unlike a decision merely requiring further investigation. It should still be read within its factual setting, rather than as a general conclusion about every transaction carried out by a representative.
What this decision does not establish
An unpaid purchase price does not automatically prove fraud or entitle the former owner to cancel a registration. Likewise, knowing a representative does not, on its own, establish bad faith. The significance of personal connections, payments and the timing of transfers depends on the complete evidence.
The existence of criminal proceedings also does not automatically cancel a land-register entry. The decision examined a civil claim and the legal position of the persons involved. It does not justify describing every disputed transaction as a proven criminal offence.
Practical analysis
The following observations are independent commentary. The first task is to identify the real dispute: a forged document, genuine authority exercised contrary to the principal’s interests, deception when authority was obtained, or a disagreement about payment. These issues may overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
For a person living outside Turkey, the power of attorney should be considered together with the instructions actually given and the transactions subsequently completed. The review should trace the property as well as the money. If a later owner is involved, evidence concerning that owner’s knowledge needs attention rather than an assumption that wrongdoing by the representative determines everything.
Allegations should remain distinct from established findings in correspondence and case preparation. Preserving original messages, complete bank records and dated transaction documents helps avoid building a claim around only part of the chronology. The choice of claims and defendants requires a separate assessment of the actual documents.
Documents to assemble
- The power of attorney and any written instructions about its intended use.
- The current land-register record, transfer history and transaction documents.
- Bank statements, payment receipts and any explanation of the agreed price.
- Messages showing how the representative and purchasers became involved.
- Available civil and criminal case documents, with their procedural status clearly identified.
Decision, sources and review date
Decision: Turkish Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), First Civil Chamber, 23 February 2016, E. 2016/935, K. 2016/2046. This is a selective, anonymised analysis of the judgment.
Statutory source: Turkish Civil Code, Law No. 4721, Articles 1023 and 1024 — Ministry of Justice.
Research checked: 16 October 2026. The translated excerpt is unofficial.