Contents

1. What Is an Improvement (Muhdesat)? Which Structures and Trees Fall Within This Scope?

The word “muhdesat” means “something subsequently created”. In legal terminology, it refers to structures located on land owned by another person, as well as trees planted in the form of vineyards and orchards.

The principal authority defining the limits of the concept is the Court of Cassation’s Decision Unifying Precedents dated 22.12.1995 and numbered 1/3. According to that decision, in property law, “muhdesat” should be understood as permanent structures and installations on land and trees planted in the form of vineyards and orchards. More specifically, an improvement consists of structures, installations and planted items located on an identified immovable property that belong to someone other than the owner or to one of the co-owners.

For an item to qualify as an improvement, three elements must be present together: there must be a structure, installation or vegetation physically existing on the property; the addition must not be temporary but must be integrated with the land and permanent in nature; and it must result from a person’s deliberate act rather than natural formation.

2. Principle of Integral Parts: TMK Arts. 684 and 718

Under Turkish law, ownership of immovable property generally includes the structures and plants located on it. Under Article 684 of Turkish Civil Code No. 4721, a person who owns a thing also owns its integral parts. An integral part is an element that, according to local custom, constitutes an essential component of the principal thing and cannot be separated from it without destroying, damaging or altering its structure.

Article 718 of the same Code reinforces this principle: subject to statutory restrictions, ownership of land also covers structures, plants and springs on it. Read together, these two provisions lead to a clear result: buildings and trees on land are legally inseparable parts of the land.

3. Can an Improvement Be Sold Separately from the Land?

No. Where co-ownership is dissolved by sale, buildings, trees and similar integral parts on the property are subject to the land and cannot be sold independently. This principle is consistently repeated in Court of Cassation case law.

In the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 01.12.2020, E. 2017/2668, K. 2020/7976; the 7th Civil Chamber decisions dated 02.10.2023, E. 2023/2021, K. 2023/4336 and 19.11.2025, E. 2025/4979, K. 2025/4848, it was stated that where co-ownership is dissolved by sale and there are buildings, trees or similar integral parts on the property, these must be sold together with the land.

The reasoning was also explained in the Court of Cassation 20th Civil Chamber decision dated 02.04.2019, E. 2018/2658, K. 2019/2226: because structures and similar elements on immovable property subject to dissolution of co-ownership by sale are integral parts of the land under TMK Art. 684, and the owner of the land also owns its integral parts, those elements must likewise be sold together with the land.

4. Does Ownership of an Improvement Create an Ownership Right?

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood points in practice. A determination that the improvement belongs to you does not give you a separate ownership right over that structure.

As emphasised in the Decision Unifying Precedents dated 22.12.1995 and numbered 1/3, the right over an improvement is a personal right; it does not grant its holder a separate ownership right or limited right in rem independent of ownership of the land. The legal basis of this right is found in TMK Arts. 722, 724 and 729.

The practical meaning is this: determination of the improvement does not give you title to that part of the property; it only ensures that the portion of the sale proceeds attributable to the improvement is paid to you. Court of Cassation practice also accepts that merely recording the improvement in the declarations section of the land registry does not by itself create a right; the annotation is evidence documenting ownership.

5. Recording in the Land Registry: Cadastral Law Art. 19/2

The situation where an improvement belongs to a person other than the owner of the immovable property or only to one of the co-owners is regulated in the second paragraph of Article 19 of Cadastral Law No. 3402. Under the provision, where an improvement on immovable property belongs to a person other than the owner or to one of the co-owners, the owner of the improvement, its type, date of creation and legal basis of acquisition are recorded in the declarations section of the cadastral record and land register.

This annotation is a fundamental safeguard for protecting the rights of the owner of the improvement in dissolution-of-co-ownership proceedings. If the annotation exists, the ownership dispute is largely resolved and a separate action is generally unnecessary.

6. How Is Ownership Determined? Three Scenarios

In an action for dissolution of co-ownership, ownership of the improvement is clarified according to three different scenarios.

6.1. If there is a land-registry annotation or agreement among the co-owners

If an annotation exists in the declarations section of the land register, or all co-owners agree on ownership of the improvement, there is no need to bring a separate action. In the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 08.06.2023, E. 2023/892, K. 2023/3222, it was held that because there was no dispute between the parties regarding ownership of the improvement, there was no need for a separate ownership action and it had been established that the improvements belonged to the defendants.

6.2. If there is a dispute among the co-owners

The party claiming ownership is granted time to bring an action for determination of ownership, and that action is treated as a preliminary issue. The details are explained in the next section.

6.3. If there is no claim, no agreement and no annotation

The property is treated as a whole. In the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 02.10.2023, E. 2023/2021, K. 2023/4336, it was held that where there is no agreement regarding the improvement, the immovable property should be valued as a whole and the proceeds distributed among the co-owners in proportion to their shares.

7. If There Is a Dispute: Granting Time and Treating the Issue as a Preliminary Matter

If there is a dispute among the co-owners over who owns the improvement, and some co-owners assert rights over it and request that this dispute be resolved first, the court cannot decide the matter ex officio.

The procedure was clearly set out in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 14.05.2024, E. 2023/2262, K. 2024/2585: where there is a dispute as to who owns the integral parts on the immovable property, and some co-owners claim rights over them and request that this dispute be resolved first, the relevant co-owner must be granted an appropriate period under Article 165 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring an action before the competent court.

The final judgment resulting from that action is then taken as the basis for apportionment in the dissolution-of-co-ownership case. This approach was also adopted in the Court of Cassation 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 10.06.2021, E. 2019/302, K. 2021/3954 and the 20th Civil Chamber decision dated 02.04.2019, E. 2018/2658, K. 2019/2226.

8. Action for Determination of Ownership of Improvements: Jurisdiction, Legal Interest, Time Limit, Court Fee

Competent court and defendants

The court with subject-matter jurisdiction in an action for determination of ownership of improvements is the Civil Court of First Instance. The action is brought against all registered co-owners of the property except those who expressly acknowledge that the improvement was created by the claimant. Co-owners who accept ownership do not need to be named as defendants; this reduces both court-fee and attorney-fee exposure.

Requirement of legal interest: cannot be filed without a pending proceeding

This is the most frequently overlooked aspect of this action. Under HMK Art. 106, a claimant in a declaratory action must have a current legal interest, and legal interest is a procedural prerequisite examined ex officio at every stage of the proceedings.

In practice, unless there is a pending action for dissolution of co-ownership or an expropriation proceeding concerning the property an action for determination of ownership of improvements cannot be brought. Courts dismiss declaratory actions based solely on disputes that may arise in the future where there is no currently pending case, on the ground that there is no legal interest. Therefore, actions filed in advance merely “to avoid future problems” do not succeed.

Time limit: 10 years for improvements created before the cadastral survey

As a rule, the right to bring an action for determination of ownership of improvements is not subject to a limitation period. However, if the improvement was created before the cadastral survey, under Article 12/3 of Cadastral Law No. 3402, a ten-year forfeiture period runs from the date on which the cadastral records became final. Once this period has expired, an action can no longer be brought on legal grounds predating the cadastral survey.

Court fee

The court fee is calculated on the value corresponding to the defendants’ shares in the total value of the improvement, excluding the value of the land. Stating an artificially low value when filing the action in an attempt to save on court fees may result in an additional fee obligation once the actual value is established through an expert report during the proceedings.

9. What Happens If No Claim Is Made? Apportionment May Be Grounds for Reversal

The rule operates in both directions. Where there is no improvement claim, agreement or annotation, it is also incorrect for the court to make a land/improvement apportionment on its own initiative, and this constitutes grounds for reversal.

Decisions to this effect include the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 21.06.2023, E. 2023/2873, K. 2023/3525; the 14th Civil Chamber decision dated 01.12.2020, E. 2017/2668, K. 2020/7976; and the 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 08.09.2025, E. 2025/3105, K. 2025/3447.

The consequence is serious for the co-owner who created the improvement: even if there is in fact a house on the property that you built, the court cannot take it into account on its own initiative unless a proper claim and determination have been made in the case. As a result, the value of the house, like the value of the land, is distributed among all co-owners according to their shares.

10. Distribution of Sale Proceeds: the Three-Step Method

Once it is established that the improvement belongs to one or more co-owners, the sale proceeds are distributed under TMK Art. 699 in the following three stages.

The apportionment method was expressly described in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 19.11.2025, E. 2025/4979, K. 2025/4848: the values of the land and the improvement must be determined separately as of the filing date, those values must be added to determine the total value of the immovable property, and the percentages attributable to the land and the improvement must then be established.

The distribution principle was stated in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 05.06.2024, E. 2024/2404, K. 2024/3245: the portion attributable to the improvement is distributed to the co-owner who owns the improvement, while the remainder is distributed among all co-owners, including that co-owner, according to their shares. In the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 21.10.2021, E. 2021/717, K. 2021/2218, failure to rule on the remaining sale proceeds was considered grounds for reversal.

11. Example Calculation with Figures

Let us make the method concrete. The following example is constructed solely to demonstrate the calculation logic.

In the same example, if the improvement claim had not been raised or the ownership action had not been filed within the prescribed time, the 8,000,000 TL would have been divided equally among the four co-owners and the sibling who built the house would have received 2,000,000 TL. The 3,600,000 TL difference shows the value of a single procedural step.

12. If There Is More Than One Property and Enforceability of the Judgment

If more than one immovable property is involved in the case, a separate percentage must be determined for each property. This was emphasised in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 15.09.2025, E. 2025/2558, K. 2025/3649. Because the land and improvement values of different properties will differ, using a single average percentage is incorrect.

Another important point is the wording of the judgment. To prevent the co-owner who owns the improvement from losing rights, the existence and ownership of the improvement must be clarified during the trial and the distribution percentages of the sale proceeds must be expressly stated in the operative part of the judgment in an enforceable manner . Discussing the percentages only in the reasoning without including them in the operative part produces a judgment that cannot be implemented at the sales-office stage.

13. What Happens If the Improvement Belongs to a Third Party?

The result differs where the improvement belongs to a third party who is not a co-owner. That person cannot be joined to the dissolution-of-co-ownership action and cannot receive a share of the sale proceeds.

In the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decisions dated 02.10.2023, E. 2023/2021, K. 2023/4336 and 05.06.2024, E. 2024/2404, K. 2024/3245, it was held that such a person cannot be included in the case as the owner of the improvement and cannot receive a share of the sale proceeds. The same conclusion was reiterated in the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision dated 19.11.2025, E. 2025/4979, K. 2025/4848 and the 18th Civil Chamber decision dated 03.10.2016, E. 2015/12995, K. 2016/10862.

In that situation, the third party’s rights do not disappear entirely; rights to compensation under the general provisions of TMK Arts. 722, 723, 724 and 729 are reserved. However, those rights are asserted in a separate action, not in the dissolution-of-co-ownership case. Persons who construct a building on land as tenants or authorised users should be aware of this distinction.

14. What Is Not Considered an Improvement?

The boundary of the concept of improvement is determined by whether the item qualifies as an integral part. Items that can be removed and taken away from the property and are not integrated with the land are not regarded as improvements.

• Removable items: Court of Cassation practice has held that elements such as iron posts and wire fencing, which can always be dismantled, removed and separated from the immovable property, do not qualify as integral parts.
• Trees planted for commercial cutting: Trees such as poplars and willows that are planted commercially to be cut after reaching a certain stage of growth are not, by their nature, regarded as integral parts of the immovable property. By contrast, fruit trees planted in the form of vineyards and orchards fall within the scope of improvements.
• Temporary structures: Structures not intended to be permanent are assessed under TMK Art. 728 and are not regarded as improvements.

There is also a situation in which the scope is broader: grafting wild trees, such as wild olive or terebinth, and turning them into fruit-bearing trees is accepted as an improvement that must be recorded in the declarations section under Article 19/2 of the Cadastral Law. The value created through labour and expense may qualify as an improvement even though the tree itself already existed.

15. If the Structure Is Unauthorised, Is the Improvement Claim Dismissed?

No. Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decisions accept that, in an action for determination of ownership of improvements, the fact that the structure on the immovable property is unauthorised does not require dismissal of the action.

The reason lies in the concept itself: an improvement is determined not by whether it is licensed, but by whether it is a permanent structure integrated with the land. Lack of a permit may give rise to administrative sanctions, but it does not eliminate the right of the person who created the structure to receive the portion of the sale proceeds attributable to it. In practice, a significant number of structures on jointly owned rural land are unlicensed and are regularly accepted as improvements in these cases.

16. Litigation Costs: There Is No Joint and Several Liability

A common mistake in improvement cases is to order litigation costs to be recovered jointly and severally from the defendants. Under the Court of Cassation 7th Civil Chamber decision E. 2021/4638, K. 2022/2810, each defendant may be held liable for litigation costs and attorney’s fees only in proportion to his or her share in the land registry . Joint and several liability does not apply in these cases.

This makes a serious difference in cases involving many co-owners. In a property with thirty co-owners, imposing joint and several liability could make an heir with a very small share responsible for all litigation costs. When the judgment is served, the provision concerning costs and attorney’s fees should be checked from this perspective.

17. Summary Table

18. Frequently Asked Questions

I built the house on the land; will the entire sale proceeds be paid to me?

No, not the entire amount. The values of the land and the improvement are determined separately and converted into percentages. The portion attributable to the improvement is paid only to you; the portion attributable to the land is distributed among all co-owners, including you, in proportion to their shares. In other words, you receive the value of the house, while your right to the value of the land is limited to your ownership share.

Does determination of the improvement give me title to that house?

No. The right over the improvement is a personal right; it does not grant its holder an ownership right or limited right in rem independent of the land. The determination may only be relied upon in the distribution of sale proceeds and in processes such as expropriation.

Can I file an action for determination of the improvement now even though there is no pending case?

As a rule, no. Unless there is a pending action for dissolution of co-ownership or an expropriation proceeding, such an action cannot be brought; courts dismiss declaratory actions based solely on disputes that may arise in the future for lack of legal interest.

The structure is unlicensed; will my claim be rejected?

No. Under Court of Cassation practice, the fact that the structure is unauthorised does not require dismissal of the action. Whether something qualifies as an improvement depends not on whether it has a permit, but on whether it is a permanent structure integrated with the land.

Can I claim a share for the poplar trees I planted?

Trees such as poplars and willows that are planted for commercial purposes and grown to be cut when mature are not, by their nature, regarded as integral parts of the immovable property. By contrast, fruit trees planted in the form of vineyards and orchards are treated as improvements.

I built the house as a tenant and I am not a co-owner. Can I receive a share of the sale proceeds?

No. If the improvement belongs to a third party who is not a co-owner, that person cannot be joined to the dissolution-of-co-ownership action and cannot receive a share of the sale proceeds. However, your compensation rights under the general provisions of TMK Arts. 722–724 and 729 are reserved and must be asserted in a separate action.

Is there a time limit for bringing an action concerning improvements?

As a rule, the right to bring the action is not subject to a time limit. However, if the improvement was created before the cadastral survey, a ten-year forfeiture period runs from the date on which the cadastral records became final under Cadastral Law Art. 12/3.

The judgment does not state the percentage; it is mentioned only in the reasoning. Is that a problem?

Yes. The distribution percentages must be expressly stated in the operative part of the judgment in a manner suitable for enforcement. Failure to rule on the remaining sale proceeds has also been treated as grounds for reversal.

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

Almost all rights lost in disputes concerning improvements are lost not because the right does not exist, but because it was not asserted in time. If the claim is not introduced into the case, the court cannot consider it ex officio; if the action is not filed within the strict deadline granted, the claim is deemed abandoned; if the percentage is not stated in the operative part, the judgment cannot be enforced.

The expert-examination stage is also decisive. The values of the land and the improvement must be determined separately as of the filing date; if no timely objection is made to a report that gives only a single total value, apportionment cannot be carried out. Likewise, in cases involving more than one immovable property, a separate percentage must be requested for each property.

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?