NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

423 MISCELLANEOUS “deprive his heirs of their inheritance,” is additionally sought in order to deduct a simulated transaction of the legator. 3 In the decision of TheAssembly on the Unification of Judgements of the Court of Cassation dated 1.4.1974 and numbered 1/2 regarding a simulated transaction of a legator, the matters explained above are emphasized: “It is determined in the second meeting of the Grand General Assembly of the Unification of Judgements of the Court of Cassation dated 1.4.1974 that if a legator , for the purpose of bereaving his heirs of succession rights, declares his will in the direction of sale in front of the land registry official on his immovable property registered in the land registry which he actually wanted to donate, all of the damaged inheritors, whether or not statutorily entit - led to the reserved portion, have right to bring an action claiming that the apparent sales agreement is void due to simulation based on Article 18 of the Code of Obligation, and the concealed donation agreement lacks the formal requirement, and this right to bring an action does not affect the rights provided by Articles 507 and 603 of the Civil Code for valid agreements.” The Decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 19.02.2019 and numbered 1-479/1178 and Our Assessment The case that is the subject of the decision of the Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation referred to in the title, is comprised of an example of qualified simulation in which the apparent transaction is sales, and the concealed transaction is donation, such as in the explanations we have made regarding simulations and simulated transactions of a legator. Indeed, in the case at hand, it is argued that while the legator sold an immovable property to his wife (apparent transaction) his real intention was donation (concealed transaction). 3 For an example, see. 1. CC, No. 4755/16648, 19.4.2016; 1. CC, No. 6857/7095, 12.5.2015.