“İptal” neyi bozar — mülkiyeti mi?

Kanun “butlan” der; fakat bu, işlemin herkese karşı yok sayılması değildir. İptal davası nispidir: malın mülkiyeti üçüncü kişiden borçluya dönmez; davacı alacaklı, o mal üzerinde m.283 uyarınca cebri icra (haciz-satış) yetkisi kazanır.

Üç yolu aynı tabloda ayırın

Aynı taşınmaz satışı hem “ucuz satış / bağış karinesi” (İİK) hem “görünür satış, gerçekte bağış” (TBK 19) hem de “tapuda yolsuz tescil” iddiası doğurabilir. Hangi yolun şartı hangisidir — bunu ezberlemeden önce ayrımı bilin.

Madde haritası — her kutu bir işlev

11. Bap üç katmandır: kim dava açar (277) → hangi tasarruflar iptale tabi (278–280) → nasıl yargılanır ve ne hükmedilir (281–284). Altta aciz belgesinin dayanakları (105 / 143). Kutuya tıklayınca tam madde metni açılır.

Bağlantı: 105/143 belgesi, m.277’deki “iptal davası açma hakkı”nı doğurur; 278–280 ise bu hakkın konusu olan tasarruf tiplerini sayar.

Üç iptal grubu: 278 · 279 · 280

Bunlar alternatif yollardır. Hâkim, olayın özelliklerine göre serbestçe nitelendirir; “yalnızca bir maddeye sıkışmış” sınırlı sayım değildir (YHGK E.2021/204, K.2023/415). Her grubun farklı süre ve farklı ispat yükü vardır.

Üç süre — birbirinin yerine geçmez

Öğrencinin en sık karıştırdığı nokta burasıdır. “Beş yıl” diye tek süre yoktur: biri şüpheli dönem, biri m.280 takip süresi, biri dava açma hak düşürücü süredir.

Özel dava şartları — önce kapı, sonra içerik

m.278–280’e girmeden önce şu dört kapı açılmalıdır. Kapılar kapalıysa mahkeme esasa (hangi tasarruf grubu?) geçmez; “ön şart / dava şartı yokluğu”ndan ret gündeme gelir.

Aciz belgesi: geçici · kesin · şeklî tutanak

m.277, “elinde muvakkat yahut kati aciz vesikası bulunan” alacaklıya dava hakkı verir. Bu belge olmadan (veya onun yerine geçmeyen tutanakla) iptal yolu açılmaz.

Taraf teşkili ve dördüncü kişi

m.282 davalıyı tanımlar: borçlu + onunla hukuki işlem yapan / kendisine ödeme yapılan kimse (+ mirasçıları). Bunların dışında kötü niyetli üçüncü şahıslara (pratikte “4. kişi”) dava açılabilir; iyiniyetli üçüncü kişi korunur.

• Mecburi dava arkadaşlığı: Borçlu ile karşı taraf kural olarak birlikte davalı gösterilir; eksik taraf teşkili bozma sebebidir.
• Zincirleme devir: Mal 3. kişiden 4. kişiye geçmişse, 4. kişi yönünden yalnız “ucuz aldı / ivaz farkı” yetmez; kötü niyet somut delille ispatlanmalıdır.
• İvaz hesabı: Satışta haciz/ipotek yükü varsa rayiç hesabında bu yükler düşülür — “görünür düşük bedel” tek başına kötü niyet kanıtı değildir.

Bedel, ihtiyati haciz, infaz modeli

Mal hâlâ 3. kişinin elindeyse sonuç “iptal + cebri icra”dır. Mal yargılama sırasında veya öncesinde elden çıkmışsa dava kanunen bedele dönüşür. İhtiyati haciz burada klasik ihtiyati hacizden farklı bir özel rejimdir.

Görev, yetki, vekâlet ücreti

Nispi dava niteliği, hem yetkiyi hem de vekâlet ücretinin hesabını etkiler. “Taşınmaz var” diye otomatik HMK 12 uygulamak; “ön şarttan ret”te nispi vekâlet yazmak — tipik bozma sebepleridir.

Hukuk Genel Kurulu — neyi netleştiriyor?

Aşağıdaki her karar, tek bir ana soruya cevap verir. Künye yanında o cevabın ayırt edici cümlesini okuyun; tam metin sol menüdeki Kararlar sekmesindedir.

4. ve 5. Hukuk Daireleri — pratik tuzaklar

Daire kararları, HGK’nın çizdiği çerçeveyi günlük dosya hatalarına indirger: süre, terdit, 4. kişi ispatı, vekâlet, iflas yetkisi, ıslah sonrası yetki.

Mahkemenin sıralı değerlendirme algoritması

Dosyayı “hangi maddeye girer?” diye değil; şu sırayla okuyun. Her basamak bir öncekinin kapısını açar.

Dilekçe öncesi kontrol listesi

Dava açmadan önce dosyada şu belgelerin ve nitelendirmelerin hazır olduğundan emin olun. Eksik parça, bozma veya ön şart ret riskidir.

Kapanış — beş öğreti cümlesi

Bunlar slogan değil; her biri bir ayrımı kilitleyen ders özetidir. Anlamı açık olmayan kısaltma bırakmayın.

1. İptal nispidir. Malın mülkiyeti üçüncü kişiden borçluya dönmez; davacı alacaklı, o mal üzerinde cebri icra yetkisi kazanır (m.283).
2. Önce özel dava şartları, sonra 278/279/280. Gerçek alacak, kesinleşmiş takip, borçtan sonra tasarruf ve aciz belgesi yoksa esasa (hangi iptal grubu?) girilmez.
3. Üç süre birbirinin yerine geçmez. 1 yıl = şüpheli dönem (278/279); 5 yıl takip = m.280 koşulu; 5 yıl dava = m.284 hak düşürücü süre.
4. Elden çıkışta bedel; 4. kişide kötü niyet. Mal elden çıkmışsa m.283/2 nakdi tazmin. Zincirdeki sonraki iktisapçıya yalnız “ucuz aldı” yetmez; kötü niyet ispatlanır.
5. Terdit TBK m.19; m.278’i 7571 ile oku. İİK şartları düşerse muvazaa yolu ayrı incelenir. 24.12.2025 değişikliği (7571) yakınlar karinesini genişletmiştir.

When the creditor can no longer collect from the debtor’s assets through forced execution (aciz / insolvency), the creditor seeks to neutralize, through the court, certain dispositions the debtor made to the detriment of creditors. This is the Turkish Enforcement Law counterpart of the Roman actio Pauliana: EBL Art. 277–284.

Place in the enforcement flow

The lawsuit arises not at the start of enforcement, but when attachable assets are missing or insufficient:

1. Claim + enforcement proceedings → proceedings become final
2. Attachment / asset investigation → no assets or shortfall
3. Insolvency certificate (provisional Art. 105 / definitive Art. 143) → standing to sue arises
4. Avoidance action — Art. 277–284 → judgment
5. Relative forced-execution authority (Art. 283)

Three distinct legal channels — do not confuse them

Practice: Petitions often plead EBL + TCO 19 in the alternative (terdit): if EBL conditions fail, the simulation path remains open. Distinguishing precedent: Y4HD E.2024/10449, K.2025/9664.

The statute speaks of “butlan” (nullity), but this does not mean the transaction is disregarded erga omnes. The action is relative (nispi): title does not revert from the third party to the debtor; the plaintiff creditor obtains authority under Art. 283 to levy forced execution (attachment–sale) on that asset.

Distinguishing jurisprudence — YHGK E.2021/204, K.2023/415: The action is of a “relative nature”; the court does not reach the merits until the special prerequisites are met (genuine claim, finalized enforcement, disposition after the debt arose, insolvency certificate). Full text → Decisions tab.

The same sale of an immovable may support (i) an “undervalue / gift presumption” claim under the EBL, (ii) an “apparent sale, true gift” claim under TCO 19, and/or (iii) a claim of wrongful registration. Know the conditions of each path before memorizing article numbers.

Alternative-pleading logic: Examine EBL conditions first; if they are absent or have fallen away, assess TCO 19 separately. The court must not write a judgment “as if there were a single legal basis” — Y4HD E.2024/10449, K.2025/9664.

Chapter XI has three layers: who may sue (277) → which dispositions are avoidable (278–280) → how the case is tried and what is ordered (281–284). Below that sit the insolvency-certificate bases (105 / 143). In the HTML deck, clicking a box opens the full article text.

Link: The 105/143 certificate generates the right to sue under Art. 277; Art. 278–280 catalogue the types of disposition that are the object of that right.

These are alternative routes. The judge freely characterizes the facts; the list is not a closed enumeration locked to a single article (YHGK E.2021/204, K.2023/415). Each group has a different period and a different burden of proof.

Art. 278 — Gratuitous / gift-deemed dispositions

Gifts and gratuitous dispositions made within one year before the date of the insolvency certificate / attachment minutes of insolvency character / opening of bankruptcy.

• Gift presumptions: transactions among close persons; grossly inadequate consideration; life annuity / lifelong maintenance, etc.
• Law No. 7571 (24.12.2025): spouse (even if the marriage ended within the last year), in-laws, and persons living in the common dwelling are expressly covered.
• The counterparty may rebut the presumption by proving genuine consideration.

Art. 279 — Nullity due to insolvency

Certain “suspect” acts by a non-paying debtor within one year before attachment / insolvency / bankruptcy:

• Pledge not previously promised
• Payment other than money / customary means of payment
• Payment of a debt not yet due
• Land-registry annotations strengthening personal rights

If the beneficiary proves they did not know the debtor’s situation, the action is not heard.

Art. 280 — Intent to prejudice creditors

Acts by a debtor whose assets do not cover debts, made with intent to harm creditors, where the other party knew or circumstances required knowledge.

• Within five years of the act, attachment or bankruptcy proceedings must have been initiated (period specific to Art. 280)
• Presumptions of kinship; commercial undertaking / inventory transfer presumptions
• Burden of proof ordinarily on the plaintiff (presumptions assist)

The most common student confusion: there is no single “five-year” clock. One period is the suspect window, one is the Art. 280 follow-up requirement, one is the forfeiture period for filing suit.

Example distinction: If the suit was filed within the Art. 284 period, the court may not dismiss solely for “time barred”; it must examine the merits of Art. 277 et seq. — Y4HD E.2022/14444, K.2025/8146 (disposition 18.07.2014 / suit 16.07.2019: period not expired).

Before entering Art. 278–280, these four doors must open. If closed, the court does not reach characterization (which avoidance group?); dismissal for lack of preliminary / procedural prerequisites is on the table.

1. Genuine claim: The enforcement basis must not be simulated / fictitious (proof of kinship, income, underlying relationship).
2. Finalized enforcement proceedings: Procedural prerequisite of the EBL path.
3. Disposition ≥ birth of the debt: Dispositions before the debt arose are ordinarily outside this action (watch issue / drawing dates on cheques and promissory notes).
4. Insolvency certificate: Provisional (Art. 105) or definitive (Art. 143); the minutes must reflect an actual asset investigation.

Critical practical rule: If the certificate is missing when the suit is filed, the action does not automatically fail: the document may be completed later — even after appeal or remittal. This is the “flexibly completable” face of the special prerequisites. YHGK E.2021/204, K.2023/415.

Art. 277 confers standing on every creditor holding a provisional or definitive insolvency certificate. Without that document (or minutes that do not legally replace it), the avoidance path does not open.

Art. 282 defines defendants: the debtor + the person who dealt with / received payment from the debtor (+ heirs). Beyond them, the action may be brought against bad-faith third parties (in practice the “fourth party”); good-faith third parties are protected.

• Mandatory joinder: Debtor and counterparty are ordinarily sued together; incomplete party composition is a ground for reversal.
• Chain transfers: If the asset passed from a 3rd to a 4th party, mere “bought cheap / consideration gap” is not enough; bad faith must be proved with concrete evidence.
• Valuing consideration: Where the sale was burdened with attachment/mortgage, those encumbrances reduce market-value comparison — a “visibly low price” alone is not proof of bad faith.

If the asset is still with the third party, the result is “avoidance + forced execution.” If it left their hands before or during the lawsuit, the claim converts by operation of law into a claim for value. Provisional attachment here is a special regime, distinct from classical provisional attachment.

Enforcement model (YHGK E.2023/174, K.2023/711): Avoidance does not restore title to the debtor. The judgment is enforced by placing it in the existing enforcement file, limited to the claim and accessories.

The relative character of the action shapes both venue and fee calculation. Automatically applying CCP 12 because “there is an immovable,” or awarding proportional fees on a preliminary-dismissal, are classic reversal traps.

• Subject-matter jurisdiction: For ordinary creditor avoidance, the rule is the civil court of first instance; trial is simplified under Art. 281. The commercial court is not the default.
• Venue: Because the action is relative, the exclusive venue of CCP Art. 12 (place of the immovable) does not ordinarily apply; general venue (CCP 6 et seq.) governs.
• Trap: If amendment of pleadings (ıslah) adds a real claim (e.g. release of mortgage / negative declaration of title), CCP 12 kicks in — Y5HD E.2025/14873, K.2026/4688.
• Dismissal for lack of preliminary prerequisites → attorney’s fee must be fixed (maktu).
• Dismissal on the merits → proportional fee (as a rule, on the lower of the enforcement claim and the disposition value — AAÜT framework). Distinguishing case: Y4HD E.2025/98, K.2025/11533.

Each decision answers one main question. Read the distinguishing sentence next to the citation; full texts are in the Decisions tab.

Chamber decisions reduce the YHGK framework to everyday filing errors: time, alternative pleading, 4th-party proof, fees, bankruptcy authority, venue after amendment.

1. Party composition — debtor + counterparty; bad-faith 4th party if there is a chain (Art. 282)
2. General procedural prerequisites — CCP Art. 114 (jurisdiction, capacity, legal interest, etc.)
3. Special prerequisites — genuine claim → finalized enforcement → disposition after debt → insolvency certificate
4. Forfeiture — Art. 284 (ex officio); if expired, the EBL path closes (TCO 19 alternative remains separate)
5. Characterization — does the case fall under 278 / 279 / 280? (judge not locked to one article)
6. Good faith / bad faith — especially 4th party; presumptions and burden of proof
7. Relief — avoidance + forced execution or value; Art. 281 PA converts into definitive attachment on acceptance

Before filing, ensure documents and legal framing are ready. Missing pieces mean reversal or preliminary dismissal risk.

Evidence / documents

• Enforcement file + finalization proof
• Insolvency certificate or attachment minutes with actual asset investigation (Art. 105/143)
• Disposition document (deed, contract, payment) + exact date
• Document showing when the debt arose (contract, cheque issue date, etc.)

Framing / prayer

• Basis: EBL 277–284 + alternative TCO Art. 19
• Prayer: avoidance + forced execution + (if needed) Art. 281 PA + value if the asset has left
• Time check: Art. 284 and the relevant group (1 year / Art. 280 follow-up)
• Read Art. 278 with the Law No. 7571 text (spouse, in-laws, common dwelling)

1. Avoidance is relative. Title does not return from the third party to the debtor; the plaintiff creditor obtains forced-execution authority over that asset (Art. 283).
2. Special prerequisites first, then 278/279/280. Without a genuine claim, finalized enforcement, a post-debt disposition, and an insolvency certificate, the court does not enter characterization.
3. The three periods do not substitute for each other. 1 year = suspect window (278/279); 5-year follow-up = Art. 280 condition; 5-year lawsuit = Art. 284 forfeiture.
4. On disposal → value; against the 4th party → bad faith. If the asset has left, Art. 283/2 monetary compensation. Against a later acquirer, “bought cheap” alone is not enough.
5. Plead TCO 19 in the alternative; read Art. 278 with Law 7571. If EBL conditions fail, simulation is assessed separately. The 24.12.2025 amendment widened the close-persons presumption.

The Decisions tab in the HTML deck contains the full texts of the 11 cited judgments; match each citation on the slides to that text.

This material is for education; it is not a substitute for advice on a concrete file.