The sale of a share in a co-owned property to a third party may give the other co-owners the chance to acquire that share first. Pre-emption, also known as şufa, is exercised through an action for cancellation of title and registration against the buyer. However, being a co-owner is not enough to win the case: the nature of the sale, the notarized notice, the date of sale, the actual arrangement of use and the payment of the price fixed by the court within the deadline are assessed together.
Current distinction: For sales on or after December 25, 2025, a one-year outer limit applies alongside the three-month notice period. For earlier sales, the former two-year outer limit is preserved. The market value rule also applies to lawsuits that were opened before the amendment and are still pending. For that reason, calculating the deadline only from the filing date, or treating the sale price stated in the title deed as sufficient, may lead to loss of the right. 1
In which sales does the right of pre-emption arise?
Co-ownership and the requirement of a sale to a third party
TMK m.732 is based on a co-owner selling all or part of its share to a third party. The right does not enable acquisition of all the shares in the property; it enables acquisition of the share that is the subject of the sale. The plaintiff protects its own share while also asking that the sold share be registered in its name. If the buyer was already a co-owner of the same property before the sale, the buyer is not regarded as a third party, and as a rule the statutory right of pre-emption cannot be exercised.
In an inheritance partnership subject to joint ownership (elbirliği mülkiyeti), it cannot be assumed that each heir holds an independent share in a specific property. First, the type of ownership recorded in the title deed, the heirship and, where necessary, whether the parties acted together are examined. The information that "one of the siblings sold" does not by itself determine which legal institution applies. Transfer of an inheritance share and a sale of a share recorded in the title deed are different legal transactions. This subject is also addressed separately in the article on partition of inherited property.
Gift, division, auction and apparent transactions
A genuine gift, a division of an inheritance or any other transfer outside a sale does not give rise to statutory pre-emption merely because ownership changed in the title deed. However, where it is claimed that a sale was in fact carried out under the appearance of a gift, the true nature of the transaction and the consideration must be proven. The fact that the seller is related to the buyer does not by itself mean that every sale falls outside pre-emption; the real purpose of the transaction is assessed.
Pre-emption cannot be used in sales by compulsory auction (cebrî artırma). Law No. 7571 has also added sales under Law No. 2886 on State Tenders (Devlet İhale Kanunu) to the prohibition in TMK m.733. This new prohibition is not applied automatically to earlier sales; under provisional Article 1 of the TMK, the law in force on the date of sale is examined. Not every open auction is, however, a compulsory sale or a sale under Law No. 2886. 1 A similar dispute can also be reviewed in the article on title cancellation based on an inheritance partition agreement.
How is the time limit for filing a pre-emption action calculated?
The statutory procedure is for the buyer or the seller to notify the other co-owners of the sale through a notary. The three-month period arises from this notice. Learning of the sale through another channel does not automatically replace the notarized notice. However, where no notarized notice has been given, an outer limit still runs from the date of sale; the right does not remain open indefinitely.
| Time of sale and transaction | Short period | Outer limit or outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Sale before December 25, 2025 | Three months from service of the notarized notice | Two years from the sale; the former rule applies |
| Sale on or after December 25, 2025 | Three months from service of the notarized notice | One year from the sale |
| Sale with no notarized notice | No notice that starts the three-month period exists | The one- or two-year outer limit based on the sale date still runs |
| Firm deadline set by the court for paying the price | The deadline stated in the interlocutory order | Different from the filing deadline; failure to pay prevents registration |
Example: A sale on November 10, 2025 and a sale on January 10, 2026 can both be brought to court in 2026, but their outer limits are not the same. The first is examined under the former two-year regime and the second under the new one-year regime. In addition, in each file a notarized notice may already have created a three-month period that has ended. This example only illustrates the transitional rule; the calculation of the last day is also subject to the rules on service and procedure.
Sending a formal notice (ihtar) through a notary, speaking with the seller or filing a petition with the land registry office does not replace the pre-emption action. The effect of an application such as voluntary mediation on the time limits is assessed under its own statutory conditions; it should not be assumed that correspondence automatically suspends the time limit. A time limit of forfeiture (hak düşürücü süre) is taken into account by the court on its own motion. Further details can be found in the article on limitation periods and time limits for bringing actions.
How is the pre-emption price now determined?
The difference between the price in the title deed and the market value
Under current TMK m.734, the judge determines the market value of the share in dispute without delay. The party exercising pre-emption must pay that value, together with the title deed costs owed by the buyer, in cash, to the place designated for the deposit to earn interest, within the firm deadline set. A bank guarantee or a mere promise to pay cannot be used on the assumption that it replaces the statutory obligation to pay in cash. Once the decision becomes final, the amount is paid to the person entitled to it together with its accrued returns. 1
Market value (rayiç bedel) is not a repetition, under another name, of the municipal property tax value or of the amount stated in an official deed. The nature, location, zoning status and features of use of the property are investigated, together with comparable market data. The valuation method for agricultural land and for a residential plot may not be the same. Where the court expert values the entire property, the expert must also explain how the value reached the share in dispute.
As of which date is the market value calculated?
The amendment does not expressly state the valuation date. In the majority opinion of the decision of the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), E.2025/2386, K.2026/575, dated February 4, 2026, the majority adopted the filing date for lawsuits opened after the amendment, and December 25, 2025 for lawsuits pending on the date of the amendment. The fact that the earlier price had been deposited was not considered sufficient. The decision required the market value to be determined and, if necessary, a payment of the difference after the earlier payment and its returns are offset; for that purpose the decision was reversed. 2
The dissenting opinion in the decision favors linking the valuation to the date of sale and offsetting the amount against the interest on the money. The valuation date should therefore not be presented as an indisputable express provision of the law. In the file, the approach the court applied, whether the expert report was prepared on that date, and the outcome of any objections should be monitored.
Why must the interlocutory deposit order be reviewed separately?
The amount to be paid, the place of payment, the deadline and the consequence of non-compliance must be clear. If a firm deadline granted in the proper manner passes, the court cannot order registration of the share in the plaintiff's name. A partial earlier payment of the price does not make payment of a newly determined difference unnecessary. Nor should it be assumed that an objection to the expert report automatically postpones the deposit obligation. The clear terms of the court's interlocutory order must be followed.
The defense of de facto partition and abuse of rights
Where the property is in practice divided among the co-owners, each uses a specific part, and the sold share corresponds to the place in that arrangement of use, a defense based on the rule of good faith (dürüstlük kuralı) may arise against the pre-emption claim. However, the mere use of different parts by different persons, separated by a fence, a wall or a garden, does not in every file prove a de facto partition (fiilî taksim). The plaintiff's place within that arrangement, its acceptance of it and the nature of the use connected to the sale must be determined.
In preparing evidence, old aerial photographs, sketches of use, correspondence between the parties, utility subscriptions and witnesses who have known the property for a long time are assessed together. Instead of a witness saying "everyone knows their place", it matters that the witness explains which part was used by whom, since when and under which agreement. A de facto partition does not mean that a formal subdivision (ifraz) was carried out and separate title deeds were created.
The decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu) dated April 1, 2026, E.2025/216, K.2026/195 addressed a different abuse-of-rights dispute. The filing by co-owners of a claim for compensation for de facto expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el atma) against the municipality did not by itself eliminate the municipality's pre-emption right as a co-owner. The decision to persist (direnme kararı) was quashed, and it was stated that the new market value provisions must be evaluated. The decision does not mean that a municipality can in every case acquire the share by pre-emption, nor that all abuse-of-rights defenses are invalid. 3
Against whom and in which court is the action filed?
A pre-emption action is, as a rule, filed against the person who bought the share, before the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi) where the property is located. Because the land registry office is the authority where the sale was carried out, it does not automatically become a defendant. If the share was transferred again before or during the lawsuit, the party's standing (taraf sıfatı), the chain of transfers and HMK m.125 are assessed separately. For that reason, identifying the last owner from the register is important. 14
A pre-emption claim alone is not an action for the division of property or for the dissolution of co-ownership; the same mediation rule does not apply automatically to those two actions. If there are additional claims based on another relationship, the conditions for those claims are assessed separately under that relationship. A precautionary injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) may be requested over the property; however, the filing of an action does not by itself create a prohibition on sale. The court decides the scope of the injunction. 45
Relying solely on the amount in the title deed to cover court fees and costs is not safe. The fee is based on the dispute value; the on-site inspection (keşif), the expert (bilirkişi) fees, service costs and possible opposing counsel fees are separate items. Depositing the price with the court and covering litigation costs are different obligations. No fixed month or year can be guaranteed for obtaining a result. On this point, the article on applying a registration judgment after it becomes final may also be read together with this one.
Which documents should be compared when preparing the action?
| Document | Question it answers | Risk if it is missing |
|---|---|---|
| Current and historical title deed records | On what date were the seller, buyer and plaintiff co-owners? | Third parties and standing as a party may be wrongly identified |
| Official deed of the sale | What are the date, share and type of the transaction? | The transitional rule may be applied incorrectly |
| Notarized notice and proof of service | Has the three-month period started? | The date of learning may be confused with the date of service |
| Use sketch and dated documents | Is the de facto partition defense concrete? | Abstract witness statements may be treated as sufficient |
| Valuation report and comparables | Was the correct share valued as of the correct date? | The price may be overstated or understated |
| Deposit receipt and account movements | Are the principal, the difference and the returns complete? | An earlier payment may not cover the new obligation |
Where more than one co-owner sues, the files are assessed together, competing claims and the share ratio to be registered are determined separately. It cannot be assumed that each co-owner alone will definitely receive the whole share that was sold. If there is a document of withdrawal from the sale, it should be examined whether it relates only to that specific sale or amounts to a formal waiver of the right.
Unlike pre-emption, for purchase and repurchase rights set by contract, the article on registration based on purchase and repurchase rights may be read. If a registration issue arises from cadastral records, the guide on objecting to a cadastral determination completes the initial review of ownership. The explanations in the article on sham transfer of property may also be used for comparison.
Conclusion
Preparing a pre-emption action requires reading four sets of records together: the title transaction chain, the time limit and service records, the evidence of actual use, and the price calculation. Because of the December 25, 2025 amendment, the distinction between an old sale and a new action is particularly important. Once it has been established that the sale is open to pre-emption and the time limit has been preserved, the market value, the firm deadline and the payment records should be monitored. A deficiency in any one of these elements may affect the outcome of registration even if the other conditions are met.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the consent of the other co-owners required to sell a share of a jointly registered property?
As a rule, a co-owner may sell its own share. The other co-owners' right of pre-emption is not the same thing as a prior power to consent to the sale. After the sale, if its conditions are met, it may be exercised against the buyer.
Is the pre-emption period one year or two years?
For sales before December 25, 2025, the former two-year outer limit applies; for sales on and after that date, the one-year outer limit applies. In both groups, the three-month period that starts with the notarized notice is also checked.
Does learning of the sale from e-Devlet start the three-month period?
The beginning provided by law is the notice that the buyer or the seller gives through a notary. Learning of the sale in another form does not automatically replace this notice, and the outer limit running from the date of sale continues.
I had paid the sale price in an earlier case. Will an additional payment be due?
It may be. The new valuation rule also applies to pending lawsuits. By offsetting the earlier payment and its returns against the market value and title deed costs to be determined, the court may require an additional deposit.
If the share was sold to another co-owner, can an action be filed?
If the buyer was already a co-owner of the same property before the sale, the condition of a sale to a third party under TMK m.732 normally does not arise. The dates of co-ownership must be verified from the title deed records.
Does sending a formal notice through a notary suffice to exercise pre-emption?
Statutory pre-emption is exercised by filing an action against the buyer. A formal notice alone does not replace an action for cancellation of title and registration.
Is the right of pre-emption definitively lost for a garden that is physically separated?
Not every separation of use leads to the same result. Whether the parties accepted the de facto partition, the plaintiff's pattern of use and the relationship between the sale and that pattern of use are examined with evidence.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, Articles 2, 732–736 and provisional Article 1; amendments introduced by Law No. 7571. Official consolidated text, accessed October 13, 2026.
- Seventh Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay 7. Hukuk Dairesi), February 4, 2026, E.2025/2386, K.2026/575. The full decision and the dissenting opinion were reviewed through Consülto; the transmitting platform is not an official source of decisions.
- Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), April 1, 2026, E.2025/216, K.2026/195. Official text of the Court of Cassation decision.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Articles 2, 12, 94, 125 and 389 et seq.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Articles 16, 17/B and 18/B. Latest access to the sources: October 13, 2026.