An Action for Partition (Izale-i Suyu Lawsuit) is a legal procedure aimed at terminating joint or shared ownership of a movable or immovable property. Under the Turkish Civil Code, any co-owner has the right to demand the dissolution of the partnership. Partition lawsuits, which treat both plaintiffs and defendants equally, are the primary legal recourse when co-owners fail to reach a mutual agreement on property division, especially in inheritance cases.

1. Methods of Dissolving Co-Ownership in Turkey

When evaluating a partition lawsuit, the court must resolve the dispute through one of two primary statutory methods:

  • Division in Kind (Aynen Taksim): The physical division of the property among co-owners proportional to their shares. For division in kind to be ruled, the property must be physically divisible under zoning regulations and must not suffer any significant loss in value. The court is legally required to prioritize this method if requested by any shareholder.
  • Partition by Sale (Satış Suretiyle Giderilme): If division in kind is physically or legally impossible (such as a single apartment or a small agricultural plot), the court rules for the sale of the property through a public judicial auction, with the proceeds distributed among co-owners according to their shares.

2. The Judicial Auction and Bidding Price Payment Rules

Once the court orders a sale, the process is managed by a designated Auction Office (Satış Memurluğu). The sale is conducted electronically under the provisions of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL).

Under Article 130 of the EBL, the winning bidder is granted a strict statutory deadline of up to 10 days to deposit the bidding price. This deadline is absolute and cannot be extended by the auction office or the court under any circumstances.

3. Consequences of Delayed Payment (EFT Network Issues)

A frequent dispute arises when a bidder issues a transfer instruction on the final day, but due to banking network congestion, the funds fail to reach the court's account in time. Under established Yargıtay precedents, banking system delays or EFT network errors are not accepted as force majeure. If the entire bidding price is not deposited into the official account within the 10-day period, the auction is automatically cancelled under Article 133, and the bidder's security deposit is forfeited.

4. Handling Improvements (Muhtesat) on the Property

Sometimes, structures (such as houses, buildings, or agricultural assets like orchards) on the land belong to only one of the co-owners. These assets are legally referred to as muhtesat. If the co-owners dispute the ownership of these structures, a separate Lawsuit for the Determination of Improvements Ownership must be filed.

Once ownership is settled, independent experts evaluate the land and the structures separately, ensuring the auction proceeds are distributed proportionally to reflect the value of the structures to their rightful owner.

Frequently Asked Questions

For detailed information and legal consultation, you can visit our Zoning Law and Real Estate Law pages, or request an appointment via our Contact page.

Can a minority shareholder file a partition lawsuit?

Yes. Any co-owner, regardless of their share percentage, has the legal standing to file a partition lawsuit. No majority consent is required.

Can anyone participate in the partition sale auction?

Generally, yes. Judicial auctions are open to the public. However, if all shareholders agree unanimously, the auction can be restricted to shareholders only.

Can the lawsuit be settled after it is filed?

Yes. The parties can reach an agreement, sell the property privately, or perform a voluntary partition at any point before the court issues a final verdict, leading to a dismissal of the lawsuit.

1. Court of Cassation Precedent: Co-owners Cannot Exercise a Right of First Refusal Against a Court-Ordered Partition Sale

Court of Cassation, 12th Civil Chamber - File: 2016/29576, Decision: 2018/4043 (Date: 02.05.2018, unanimous)

Summary:Under Article 733/1 of the Civil Code, a statutory right of first refusal (şufa) cannot be exercised against a sale made by compulsory public auction. Because a sale carried out following a final judgment ordering partition by sale is itself a compulsory-execution sale, a right-of-first-refusal action brought by another co-owner cannot halt the sale process unless an injunction specifically enjoining the sale has been obtained. The Court of Cassation QUASHED the lower court's decision suspending the sale pending the outcome of the right-of-first-refusal action.

"…under Article 733/1 of the Civil Code, a right of first refusal cannot be exercised against sales made by compulsory auction. In the present case, the complaining shareholder's right-of-first-refusal action against the other shareholder was filed after the decision ordering partition by sale had become final, and since that action was not accompanied by any interim injunction preventing the compulsory-execution sale, it does not bar the compulsory-execution sale. It was erroneous for the court to order the suspension of the sale process pending the outcome of the action instead of dismissing the application, and this warrants quashing…"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)

BAM Precedent Decision, 7th Civil Chamber - File: 2022/289, Decision: 2023/56 - Making the Lawsuit for Determination of Ownership of Buildings on Land a Pending Issue in Corporate Valuation

Sakarya Regional Court of Justice, 7th Civil Chamber - File: 2022/289, Decision: 2023/56

Summary: In calculating the exit value of a company share, a lawsuit filed to resolve a dispute over the ownership of structures on the company's land (such as buildings or bakeries) must be treated as a pending issue, as it directly impacts the company's market value.

"[…] what the first-instance court ought to do is: […] to investigate whether an action for the ownership of the improvements has been brought in respect of the bakery and the building situated on the immovable; if so, to await its outcome; if not, to grant the plaintiff a reasonable period in which to bring such an action; to await the outcome of the action on ownership of the improvements; and finally, taking into account the parties' objections to the earlier expert reports, to obtain from a panel of experts a reasoned report, amenable to review by the parties and the court, determining the exit compensation as at the date closest to the date of judgment on the basis of a balance sheet of current values, and to render a decision according to the result […]"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)

3. Court of Cassation General Assembly Precedent Decision: 10-Day Payment Deadline in Partition Auctions

Court of Cassation, General Assembly of Civil Chambers – File: 2024/792, Decision: 2025/555 (Date: 24.09.2025, by majority, final)

Summary: The 10-day period for payment of the auction price provided under the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code applies to partition sales as well. Failure to pay within this period results in the auction being cancelled and the highest bidder being liable for the loss incurred.

"…under Article 322/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a sale must be carried out for the purposes of division or partition, the judge appoints an official to conduct the sale; the sale of movable and immovable property is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code. […] Since the sales office has no obligation to verify banking transactions, it cannot examine whether the bidder's EFT instruction was given in time. In these circumstances, the auction price cannot be treated as having been paid within the time limit. […] as the complaining bidder paid the auction price for the three properties after the ten-day final period allowed under Article 130 of the Execution and Bankruptcy Code, the sales office's action under Article 133 of that Code was in accordance with law and procedure, and the complaint must be dismissed…"

(Translated excerpt; Turkish original is authoritative)
View Full Decision (Turkish)