I. Introduction
In Turkish law, the concept of joint ownership manifests itself in the forms of shared ownership and undivided co-ownership. In shared ownership, multiple persons own the entirety of a thing that is not physically divided, each holding a specific share, whereas in undivided co-ownership, the co-owners do not have defined shares and jointly own the property.
The dissolution of partnership is regulated under Article 698 and subsequent provisions of the Turkish Civil Code (“TMK”). A lawsuit for the dissolution of co-ownership is filed to terminate the co-ownership of property subject to either shared ownership or joint ownership. Article 698 of the TMK provides that each co-owner may request the partition of the property in question.
One of the key characteristics of an action for the dissolution of co-ownership is its bilateral nature. While one party is designated as the plaintiff and the others as defendants in the case, all co-owners benefit from or are affected by the outcome of the case.
II. The Right to Request Partition and the Method of Dissolving the Partnership
Article 698 of the Turkish Civil Code provides that, unless a legal transaction imposes an obligation to continue the co-ownership or there is another legal basis for maintaining the partnership, every co-owner may request partition.
The right to request partition may be limited by a legal transaction to a maximum period of ten years. The same article also provides that contracts regarding the continuation of co-ownership of real property are subject to formal requirements and may be registered as a note in the land registry. Furthermore, taking into account the potential consequences for the co-owners of a request for partition, it is stipulated that such a request may not be made at an inappropriate time.
The method by which the partition is to be carried out is specified in Article 699 of the Turkish Civil Code. According to this provision, partition may be carried out, in principle, either by dividing the property in kind or by selling it through negotiation or auction and dividing the proceeds. Thus, the legislature has recognized the division of the property in kind and partition by sale as the two fundamental methods for dissolving the co-ownership. However, in order to resort to the sale method, it is necessary to assess whether division in kind is possible and to take into account the conditions set forth in Article 699 of the Turkish Civil Code. In division in kind, the aim is to provide each co-owner with an independent portion or part proportional to their share as a result of the physical division of the property subject to the co-ownership. The area and nature of the real property and/or asset, the number of shares and co-owners, the provisions of special legislation, and the economic values of the resulting portions must all be evaluated together. In particular, if the real property would suffer a significant loss in value as a result of division in kind, division in kind cannot be pursued. Indeed, in a recent decision issued by the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation1, it was stated that in determining whether division in kind is possible, the area of the real property, nature, the number of shares and co-owners, and zoning regulations must be taken into account, and it held that if a division in kind would result in a significant loss of value, the co-ownership must be dissolved through sale. Furthermore, in the same decision—in line with the provisions of the law—it was emphasized that if the values of the resulting portions are not equal following an in-kind division, an adjustment may be made by adding money (compensation) to the portion of lesser value.
Another important feature of a partition action is its bilateral nature. Even if the plaintiff requests the dissolution of the co-ownership through sale, the defendant co-owners may still request partition in kind. The court cannot issue a decision for sale based solely on the plaintiff’s request; it is obligated to investigate whether a physical division is possible. Since the plaintiff and the defendant have similar rights in a partition action, the defendant’s request for physical division must also be evaluated by the court. Furthermore, in the aforementioned decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Appeals, it was held that issuing a sale order based solely on the plaintiff’s request for sale – despite the possibility of partition in kind in a partition action—constitutes grounds for reversal.
In cases involving the dissolution of a partnership, where the method of equal division is to be applied, it is possible to resort to a lottery to determine which portion will be allocated to which partner. In the same decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, it is stated that in a division by specific allocation, after the portions have been determined, it must first be established whether the parties have reached full agreement on which portion will go to whom; and if there is no agreement among them, the court must determine which portion will go to which co-owner by drawing lots. The decision also emphasizes that whether or not a lottery is held is not a procedure subject to the parties’ approval and that there is no need to obtain the parties’ statements regarding whether they consent to the lottery.
If an in-kind division is not possible, or if an in-kind division is deemed economically or legally inappropriate under the conditions set forth by law, a decision is made to dissolve the co-ownership through sale. The proceeds obtained from the sale are distributed in proportion to the co-owners’ shares or the rights they hold under the joint ownership relationship. Pursuant to Article 699 of the Turkish Civil Code, the sale may be conducted through private negotiation or auction. However, the consent of all co-owners is required for the sale to take place solely among the co-owners. Therefore, if even one co-owner requests an open sale to third parties, it is not possible to decide to conduct the sale solely among the co-owners. In the case law of the Court of Cassation, the ability to issue a decision to conduct the sale among the co-owners is contingent upon the existence of the unanimous intent of all co-owners in this regard.
In a lawsuit to dissolve a co-ownership, the court’s primary objective is not to prioritize the request of one party over the will of the other co-owners, but to terminate the co-ownership relationship in accordance with the procedures and principles prescribed by law. For this reason, the court must first determine whether the real property is suitable for division in kind; if this is not possible, a decision must be made to dissolve the co-ownership through sale. Particularly with regard to real property, obtaining the necessary information and documents from the municipality, the cadastre, and other relevant administrative agencies, as well as commissioning a technical expert examination, is crucial for ensuring that the assessment of physical division is conducted properly. In the Supreme Court’s recent decisions, ordering a direct sale without conducting sufficient investigation regarding in-kind division is considered a failure to conduct a thorough review.
III. Mediation as a Prerequisite for Dissolution of Partnership
One of the most significant procedural law changes in recent years regarding disputes over the dissolution of co-ownership is the introduction of mandatory mediation as a prerequisite for litigation. Pursuant to Article 37 of the Law No. 7445 on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and Certain Other Laws, and Article 18/B added to the Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (“HUAK”), filing a lawsuit regarding the division of movable and immovable property or the dissolution of a partnership is now subject to the prerequisite of first seeking mediation. Under this regulation, the mediation process must be completed before a lawsuit regarding the dissolution of a partnership is filed . If the mediation process does not result in an agreement, the final record prepared by the mediator must be attached to the complaint. If mediation was not sought before filing a lawsuit, the case may be dismissed on procedural grounds due to the absence of a prerequisite for filing.
IV. Procedure
In cases involving the dissolution of co-ownership, the competent court is the Conciliation Court pursuant to Article 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). If the real property in question is located in a specific area, the court where the property is located has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Article 12 of the HMK. If the dissolution of co-ownership of more than one real property is sought within the scope of the same lawsuit, the provisions of the HMK regarding jurisdiction must also be taken into account.
Another important practical consideration in actions to dissolve co-ownership is the ownership of improvements on the real property. If there is a dispute regarding which co-owner owns the buildings, trees, or other elements of economic value located on the real property, this situation can directly affect the determination of the property’s value and how the sale proceeds will be distributed among the co-owners. For this reason, if the parties assert claims regarding improvements, the court may need to take their statements on this matter and, if necessary, treat the dispute over the ownership of the improvements as a pending issue or apply the relevant legal procedures.
V. Regulations Introduced in 2026
Law No. 7589 on Amendments to Certain Laws Aimed at Ensuring the Effective and Efficient Operation of the Judiciary established a special procedure for auctions to be conducted following the dissolution of co-ownership of certain types of inherited real property through sale. The new regulation applies to real estate acquired by all owners through inheritance, where no third parties other than the heirs hold ownership rights over the property. In cases where these conditions are met and a decision is made to dissolve the co-ownership through sale, the first auction regarding the sale is to be conducted exclusively among the heirs who are the owners of the real property. This special auction procedure will be applied on a one-time basis.
This change is particularly significant with regard to real property transferred by inheritance. Prior to this regulation, if a decision was made to dissolve a co-ownership through sale, third parties were also able to participate in the auction for the sale of the property. Under the new regulation ( ), however, for inherited real estate meeting certain conditions, the heirs are granted priority in the first round of bidding to retain the property among themselves.
However, it should be emphasized that this regulation does not apply to all cases involving the dissolution of co-ownership. To benefit from this regulation, all owners of the real property must have acquired their ownership through inheritance, and no third parties other than the heirs may hold any ownership rights in the property. Consequently, if one of the co-owners is a third party who is not an heir, or if ownership of the real property has not been transferred entirely by inheritance, the special auction procedure cannot be applied.
VI. Conclusion
Under Turkish law, the dissolution of co-ownership is an important legal remedy generally available to co-owners and aimed at terminating joint or undivided ownership. In current practice, it is important to prioritize the method of equal division when determining the method of dissolution; if this is not possible, a decision to dissolve the co-ownership through sale should be made, ensuring that the rights of all co-owners are protected. The entry into force of mandatory mediation as a prerequisite for litigation as of September 1, 2023, and the special regulations introduced in 2026 regarding the sale of certain real properties acquired by inheritance necessitate that the process of partition be addressed within the framework of current legislation and case law, both during the litigation and sale phases.
Footnote
1 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Case No. 2024/1198, Decision No. 2024/1998
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
