Contents

1. Basic Rule: Partition in Kind Is Examined Before Sale

Under Article 698 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, unless there is an obligation to maintain co-ownership, each co-owner may request partition of the property. The right to request partition may be restricted by a legal transaction for a maximum period of ten years; agreements concerning the continuation of co-ownership in immovable property are subject to official form and may be annotated in the land registry. A request for partition may also not be made at an inappropriate time.

The method of partition is regulated by TMK Art. 699. The provision has three stages and the order is decisive:

• Partition may be effected by partition in kind or by sale through private agreement or auction and division of the proceeds.
• If the parties cannot agree on the method of partition, upon the request of one of the co-owners the judge shall order the property to be physically divided and allocated; where the resulting parts are unequal in value, equalisation shall be achieved by adding a monetary payment to the lower-value part.
• If physical division is not appropriate in the circumstances, and particularly if division without a substantial loss in value is impossible, sale by auction shall be ordered. An auction limited to the co-owners requires the consent of all co-owners.

Under this structure, sale is not an automatic method that may be applied without first assessing the possibility of partition in kind. The most common misconception in practice is that the claimant’s request for “dissolution of co-ownership by sale” will direct the court straight to a sale. Court of Cassation practice says the opposite.

2. The Case Is Bilateral: the Defendant May Also Request Partition in Kind

Actions for dissolution of co-ownership have a distinctive procedural character: they are bilateral proceedings and produce similar consequences for both sides. In its decision dated 07.11.2024, E. 2024/3822, K. 2024/4998, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber described such cases as bilateral proceedings that terminate the co-ownership or joint-ownership relationship between co-owners and enable the transition to individual ownership, with similar consequences for the parties.

The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber, in its decision dated 14.01.2020, E. 2016/12703, K. 2020/373, likewise emphasised that the defendant has the same rights as the claimant in these proceedings. The practical consequence is this: when the defendant requests partition in kind in the statement of defence, the court is obliged to examine that request. The claimant’s request for sale does not neutralise the defendant’s request for partition in kind.

In its decision dated 04.04.2024, E. 2024/1198, K. 2024/1998, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber formulated the principle as follows: where one of the parties requests dissolution of co-ownership by partition in kind and partition in kind is possible, the primary method is dissolution of co-ownership by partition in kind.

3. Six Matters the Court Must Examine Ex Officio

Whether partition in kind is possible is not an inquiry limited to the allegations made by the parties in their pleadings. According to the formula consistently repeated in Court of Cassation case law, the court must examine the following matters:

These six criteria are repeated in nearly identical wording in the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision dated 22.09.2021, E. 2018/161, K. 2021/1063, and in numerous decisions of the 5th, 7th and 14th Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation. As to substantial loss in value, the rule is clear: if division would cause a significant loss in the property’s value, partition by physical division cannot be ordered.

4. How Is the Assessment of Partition in Kind Carried Out Step by Step?

An abstract expert opinion does not satisfy this inquiry. In the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision dated 22.09.2021, E. 2018/161, K. 2021/1063, the procedure was described as first obtaining and reviewing the current land-registry records and, where available, cadastral plans, then determining through an on-site inspection whether those records correspond to the property and whether any correction is necessary, and only then rendering a decision.

In practice, the assessment should include the following stages:

1. Current land-registry records, cadastral plans and cadastral data are obtained.
2. The surface area, nature, boundaries, actual use and whether there is a building on the property are determined by on-site inspection.
3. The number of shares and co-owners, and the area or independent section that may be allocated to each co-owner, are assessed.
4. A technical expert prepares a subdivision (partition) project .
5. The competent administrative authority is asked whether the project complies with zoning legislation.
6. If agricultural land is involved, the division restrictions and minimum-size requirements under Law No. 5403 are examined separately.
7. It is determined whether division would cause a substantial loss in value.
8. If partition in kind is not possible, the reasons are set out clearly and in a reviewable manner before proceeding to sale.

Can the court order sale if the expert says partition is possible?

No. In the case examined by the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber in its decision dated 06.03.2023, E. 2022/7441, K. 2023/1303, the technical expert reported that after areas to be surrendered for roads, parks and children’s playgrounds were deducted, new zoning parcels would be formed in the areas designated for urban housing and that these parcels could be divided among the registered owners in proportion to the value of their shares. Despite this, the court ordered sale on the grounds that one co-owner insisted on sale and subdivision without the consent of the other shareholders was not appropriate; the decision was reversed.

The converse is also true: where there are very many co-owners and the shares are unsuitable for partition, sale becomes unavoidable. In its decision dated 07.11.2024, E. 2024/3822, K. 2024/4998, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held that, considering the shares and number of co-owners in a parcel with many shareholders, partition in kind was not possible and the co-ownership could be dissolved by sale.

5. Conditions for Subdivision Under the Zoning Law (Art. 15)

Article 15 of Zoning Law No. 3194, following the amendment made by Law No. 7181 dated 4/7/2019, introduced a strict prerequisite for subdivision in planned areas. Under the provision, in areas covered by a zoning plan, it is essential first to prepare a subdivision plan in accordance with the implementation zoning plan; subdivision and consolidation transactions may be carried out only in areas where the subdivision plan has been registered . Subdivision or consolidation in areas where the subdivision plan has been registered must also comply with zoning plans and zoning legislation.

The effect of this rule in an action for dissolution of co-ownership is as follows: a subdivision request concerning a zoning parcel for which no subdivision plan has been registered is rejected from the outset, making partition in kind legally impossible. However, the article also contains exceptions. The conditions in the first and second paragraphs are not required for public investments or publicly owned areas, built-up areas where implementation of a subdivision plan is not possible, areas covered by conservation zoning plans, and remaining portions of zoning blocks that have largely been formed in accordance with the implementation zoning plan.

In addition, under the final part of the article, where parcel frontages are not specified in zoning plans, the minimum frontage widths and sizes for subdivisions are determined according to the principles in the relevant regulation; in areas outside zoning plans, subdivisions smaller than the amounts specified in the applicable regulations are not permitted. Whether the property lies inside or outside a zoning plan therefore directly affects the outcome of the partition-in-kind assessment.

6. Administrative Approval: Municipal Executive Committee and Provincial Administrative Board (Art. 16)

Under Article 16 of Zoning Law No. 3194, the compliance with the Law and regulations of consolidation or subdivision of immovable property within municipal and adjacent-area boundaries, whether carried out ex officio or upon application, and the creation or cancellation of easement rights over such property, is approved by municipal executive committees or provincial administrative boards. The approval process must be concluded no later than 30 days after the application reaches the municipality or governorate, and the matter must be notified to the land registry within 15 days for registration or cancellation. The land-registry office must complete the transaction within one month.

Court of Cassation practice clearly sets out the procedure to be followed. In the General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision dated 22.09.2021, E. 2018/161, K. 2021/1063, it was stated that, for partition in kind, a technical expert should first prepare a subdivision project and, based on that project, if the property lies within municipal or adjacent-area boundaries, the municipality should be asked—following a resolution of the municipal executive committee—whether division is possible under the Zoning Law and Regulation; if the property lies outside municipal boundaries, the provincial special administration should be asked. The same procedure has been repeated in numerous decisions of the 5th, 7th and 14th Civil Chambers.

The sequence here is important: first the project, then the approval. It is not sufficient for the court to send the administration an abstract letter asking, “Can this property be divided?” A concrete partition project that the administration can evaluate must be submitted. A sale decision based on a negative response obtained without a project may be regarded as an incomplete examination.

7. What Happens If the Approving Authority Gives a Negative Response?

Zoning rules concern public order. This was expressly emphasised in the above-mentioned General Assembly of Civil Chambers decision, which stated that if the approving authority gives a negative response and there is also a request for sale, the co-ownership should be dissolved by sale. The same conclusion appears in decisions of the 5th, 7th and 14th Civil Chambers.

At this stage, two lines of argument remain available to the co-owners. First, whether the submitted project is actually workable; a refusal issued in response to a defective or incomplete project demonstrates the inadequacy of the project, not the impossibility of partition. Second, whether the administration’s grounds for refusal are based on the applicable legislation. If the administration gives an unreasoned refusal, an administrative-court challenge against that act may also be considered.

8. Indivisibility Threshold for Agricultural Land (Law No. 5403 Art. 8)

If the property qualifies as agricultural land, a division that appears technically possible under zoning rules may nevertheless be legally impossible. Under Article 8 of Law No. 5403 on Soil Conservation and Land Use, the minimum agricultural land size is determined by the Ministry, and agricultural land that has reached the prescribed minimum size acquires the status of indivisible property .

These values are minimum thresholds; the Ministry may increase them in light of current conditions. The Law also provides that agricultural land may not be subdivided or divided into shares below the sizes determined by the Ministry and, except for sales of Treasury property, the number of shares and shareholders may not be increased. In addition, List No. (1) annexed to Law No. 5403 contains sufficient-income agricultural land sizes specified by province and district; agricultural land may not be subdivided or divided below those sizes either.

In its decision dated 24.11.2025, E. 2025/3868, K. 2025/4964, the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber held that it was incorrect to order partition in kind without considering that, in light of the surface area and share ratios of the agricultural property, the land could not be divided below the minimum agricultural land size, and the judgment was reversed. In other words, this restriction may operate not only against the party requesting sale, but also against a court ordering partition in kind.

9. Agricultural Land Inherited by Succession (Law No. 5403 Art. 8/C)

Where the dispute concerns agricultural land inherited through succession, the picture changes completely. The options are not limited to “partition in kind or sale”. Under Article 8/C of Law No. 5403, the heirs may agree on one of four methods concerning ownership of the agricultural land in the estate:

• Transfer to one heir, or to more than one heir where the sufficient-income agricultural land size requirements are met,
• Transfer to a family property partnership or profit-sharing family property partnership to be established under TMK Art. 373 et seq.,
• Transfer to a limited company to be established under the Turkish Commercial Code, in which all heirs are shareholders in proportion to their inheritance shares,
• Transfer of ownership to third parties.

If the heirs cannot agree, each may bring an action before the Civil Court of Peace. In that case, the judge shall order transfer to the qualified heir determined by considering personal ability and circumstances, at the agricultural income value. If there is more than one qualified heir, priority is given to the heir who derives his or her minimum livelihood from the land; if none does, transfer is made to the qualified heir offering the highest price. If there is no qualified heir, the land is transferred to the heir offering the highest price. If no heir requests transfer of the land to himself or herself, the judge orders sale and the proceeds are distributed according to the inheritance shares.

The article also contains a twenty-year equalisation mechanism: if all or part of the land increases in value within twenty years of the transfer because of non-agricultural use, the monetary value as of the transfer date is recalculated according to the date of authorisation, and the difference is paid by the acquiring heir to the other heirs in proportion to their shares. This rule provides an important safeguard for other heirs where the land was transferred to a qualified heir at a low value.

10. 2026 Amendment: Acquisition Prohibition Introduced for Cooperatives

Article 23 of Law No. 7584, adopted on 11/6/2026 and published in the Official Gazette dated 20 June 2026 and numbered 33286, added a new paragraph to Article 8 of Law No. 5403. Under this rule, cooperatives subject to Cooperatives Law No. 1163, in areas designated in 1/5000 and 1/1000 scale zoning plans as areas whose agricultural character is to be preserved, as well as in areas outside those plans that are subject to Law No. 5403, may not acquire ownership or limited rights in rem. The only exception is acquisitions by cooperatives engaged in agricultural activities, subject to Ministry approval.

This rule does not change the minimum agricultural land size or indivisibility provisions, but it has two consequences in dissolution-of-co-ownership cases. First, if one of the co-owners is a cooperative, it must be assessed separately whether it is legally possible to allocate a share to that cooperative through partition in kind. Second, the legal basis of co-ownership claims may become debatable in acquisitions structured through transfer of cooperative shares instead of land title.

11. If There Is a Building on the Property: Option of Establishing Condominium Ownership

If there is a completed building or independent sections on the property, the assessment of partition in kind is not limited to whether the land itself can physically be divided. Under Article 10 of Law No. 634 on Condominium Ownership, in actions for dissolution of co-ownership concerning immovable property suitable for condominium ownership, if one of the heirs or co-owners requests that partition be effected by establishing condominium ownership and allocating the independent sections, the judge may order conversion of the ownership into condominium ownership on the basis of the documents listed in Article 12 and may separately allocate the independent sections to the co-owners by equalising the shares.

The Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber expressed this point very clearly in its decision dated 03.10.2025, E. 2025/3023, K. 2025/4013: a request for partition in kind also includes a request to establish condominium ownership. A judgment rendered without examining this option was reversed for incomplete examination. In the same decision, the court also criticised ordering sale merely by relying on an expert report stating that partition in kind was impossible.

The basic documents required under KMK Art. 12 for establishment of condominium ownership are: the architectural project approved by the competent public authorities and electronically transmitted to the land-registry office, the occupancy permit, and the management plan signed by the owners. The architectural project must clearly show the dimensions of the independent sections, their land shares proportionate to values calculated according to location and size, and the construction areas. For a detailed discussion of land shares and common areas, see our articles Can Changes Be Made in the Common Areas of a Building? and How Are Common Expenses Shared in an Apartment Building / Residential Complex? .

12. Can Condominium Ownership Not Be Established If the Building Is Contrary to the Approved Project?

In practice, most buildings do not fully conform to their approved projects. A common judicial error in such cases is to conclude that “condominium ownership cannot be established” and proceed directly to sale. The Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber rejected this approach in its decision dated 18.02.2021, E. 2017/4362, K. 2021/1018.

According to the decision, where deficiencies preventing establishment of condominium ownership exist—such as discrepancies between the actual condition of the completed building and the approved project, or a building constructed in compliance with zoning rules but without an approved project—the court should not immediately conclude that condominium ownership cannot be established. If those deficiencies can be remedied and brought into compliance with legal requirements, the party requesting establishment of condominium ownership must be given the opportunity to complete them . The same decision also states that if one of the co-owners raises this request at any stage of the proceedings, the documents required by Article 12 must also be completed.

By contrast, if the condominium-ownership inquiry has been properly carried out in accordance with a reversal decision and partition has been found impossible, a sale decision is considered proper. In its decisions dated 21.09.2023, E. 2023/1479, K. 2023/7635 and 11.10.2023, E. 2023/3212, K. 2023/8802, the Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber upheld sale decisions issued after compliance with previous reversal decisions, determination of the number of independent sections, examination of whether the shares and number of co-owners were suitable for partition in kind, and examination of the possibility of establishing condominium ownership.

13. Two Limits on the Judge’s Authority

The judge’s discretion is not unlimited when ordering partition in kind. Court of Cassation decisions clearly identify two prohibitions.

Prohibition on leaving part of the property in co-ownership

Unless the co-owners consent, a portion of the property may not be left under co-ownership. This principle appears in the Court of Cassation 5th Civil Chamber decision dated 06.11.2023, E. 2023/5106, K. 2023/10403 and the 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 07.10.2024, E. 2024/2822, K. 2024/4331. In other words, a solution such as “divide one part and leave the remainder jointly owned” cannot be imposed without the express consent of all co-owners.

Prohibition on ex officio allocation of immovable property

In cases involving more than one immovable property, unless the co-owners agree, the judge may not on his or her own initiative allocate certain properties to some co-owners and the remaining properties to others as a form of partition in kind. This principle is reiterated in the above decisions and in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 04.12.2017, E. 2015/18432, K. 2017/9022.

14. Jurisdiction, Venue and Sale Procedure

Under Article 4/1-b of Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100, cases concerning partition of movable or immovable property or rights and dissolution of co-ownership fall, regardless of the value or amount in dispute, within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Peace . The court at the location of the immovable property has territorial jurisdiction, and this venue is exclusive.

Where sale is ordered, HMK Art. 322/2 applies: where sale is necessary for partition or dissolution of co-ownership, the judge appoints an officer to conduct the sale; movable and immovable property is sold under the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law. However, this provision regulates how the sale is conducted; it does not eliminate the requirement under TMK Art. 699 to examine the possibility of partition in kind before proceeding to sale.

In addition, an auction limited to the co-owners is possible only with the consent of all co-owners . An objection by even one co-owner results in the sale being conducted as a public auction open to everyone. This is an important distinction for co-owners seeking to keep the property.

15. Inheritance Community and Joint Ownership

If the property is subject to joint ownership, similar principles apply. Under TMK Art. 642, unless an heir is obliged by contract or law to maintain the community, each heir may at any time request partition of the inheritance and may ask the Civil Court of Peace to order specific assets in the estate to be distributed in kind or, if that is not possible, by sale.

The continuation of the article provides that the judge, taking into account the entire estate and each asset in it, shall, where possible, allocate each immovable property in its entirety to one heir; differences between the values of immovable properties allocated to the heirs are compensated by monetary payment so that inheritance shares are equalised. In addition, if immediate partition would significantly reduce the value of the property or estate, the Civil Court of Peace may, upon the request of one heir, order postponement of the partition.

Unless otherwise provided, the rules on co-ownership also apply to partition of joint ownership. The position of persons who do not appear as co-owners in the land registry but actually use the property is a separate issue; without an official partition, actual use does not separate ownership from the principal immovable property. We discussed the reflection of this distinction in the context of urban transformation in our article Who Holds the Urban Transformation Right in a Duplex Attic Apartment? .

16. Seven Deficiencies That Create a Risk of Reversal

1. Basing the sale decision solely on one co-owner’s request for sale.
2. Failing to obtain a subdivision project from a technical expert despite a request for partition in kind.
3. Failing to obtain the opinion of the municipal executive committee or provincial administrative board / provincial special administration.
4. Failing to examine agricultural land under the minimum and sufficient-income size thresholds in Law No. 5403.
5. Failing to examine the option of establishing condominium ownership where there is a building on the property.
6. The expert report failing to address loss in value and equalisation.
7. Failing to obtain up-to-date zoning-plan, subdivision and land-registry/cadastral data.

Summary table

17. Frequently Asked Questions

Another co-owner wants sale, but I do not. Can I stop the sale?

You cannot directly prevent it, but by requesting partition in kind you can require the court to investigate that option. Because these cases are bilateral, the defendant’s request for partition in kind is considered just as much as the claimant’s request for sale. If partition is technically and legally possible, partition in kind is the primary method.

If the expert says “partition in kind is impossible”, is the case over?

No. If the report does not include the opinion of the zoning authorities or, where applicable, the agricultural-land restrictions, it may not be sufficient on its own. In addition, for properties with buildings, the possibility of establishing condominium ownership must be examined separately; a decision issued without that inquiry carries a risk of reversal.

My share is small; will I receive a separate portion in partition in kind?

If the divided portions do not correspond in value to the shares, equalisation may be achieved by adding money to the lower-value portion. However, if the area corresponding to your share would fall below the minimum subdivision size or, for agricultural land, below the statutory minimum threshold, partition in kind may not be possible.

Our field has many co-owners; can one of the heirs take the land?

For agricultural land inherited through succession, Article 8/C of Law No. 5403 establishes a special regime. If the heirs cannot agree, the judge may order transfer to a qualified heir at the agricultural income value. If there is more than one qualified heir, priority is given to the one who derives his or her minimum livelihood from the land. If nobody requests transfer, sale is ordered.

The building is contrary to the project; can the court order sale on the ground that condominium ownership cannot be established?

Not if the deficiencies can be remedied. Court of Cassation practice does not permit an immediate conclusion that condominium ownership cannot be established merely because the actual condition differs from the approved project or the building was constructed without a project; remediable deficiencies must be completed by the party requesting condominium ownership.

Can part of the property be divided while the rest remains jointly owned?

No, unless all co-owners consent. Court of Cassation decisions expressly state that a portion of the property may not be left under co-ownership if the co-owners do not consent.

If sale is ordered, can I buy the property myself?

Co-owners may participate in the public auction. A sale limited only to the co-owners is possible only with the consent of all co-owners; if one co-owner objects, the sale is conducted as a public auction open to everyone.

Which court hears the case?

The Civil Court of Peace, regardless of the value or amount in dispute. The competent court is the court at the location of the immovable property, and this venue is exclusive.

18. Why Is It Important to Conduct the Process Correctly in These Cases?

Actions for dissolution of co-ownership may appear simple from the outside, but their consequences can be irreversible. Once a sale decision becomes final, the property leaves the co-owners’ hands; a field or building that has remained in the family for years may pass to third parties at auction. For that reason, a request for partition in kind or establishment of condominium ownership must be raised in due time, with the correct legal characterisation and supporting technical basis to be decisive.

In most cases, the critical stage is the expert examination. If the report does not include the opinion of the zoning authority, fails to assess agricultural-land limits, or does not address the option of condominium ownership at all, an objection must be made in due time and on technical grounds. An unchallenged expert report may form the basis of the judgment, and it is often not possible to cure that deficiency at the appellate stage.

Related Articles

• Who Holds the Urban Transformation Right in a Duplex Attic Apartment? Land Share or Actual Use?
• Can Changes Be Made in the Common Areas of a Building?
• How Are Common Expenses Shared in an Apartment Building / Residential Complex?