Which claims may arise even if the title deed cannot be recovered?
The immovable may have been acquired by a third party protected by the principle of reliance on the land registry. The seller may be unable to carry out the transfer, the agent may not have handed over the sale proceeds, or the refund of a price paid under an invalid transaction may be required. These events do not give rise to the same monetary claim; a different obligation relationship is examined in each.
Rejection of the title deed claim is not automatic acceptance of damages
Why the title deed case was rejected matters. If the claimant could not prove a right over the immovable, the same lack of evidence may also affect the monetary claim. By contrast, if the claimant’s earlier right has been established but the third party’s acquisition is protected, a separate possibility of damages against the person liable may exist.
TMK Article 1025 provides that claims relating to the acquisition by good-faith third parties and to damages are reserved. This provision alone does not give, in every case, the right to claim the entire current value of the immovable from the same person. The provision on which liability rests and the loss that actually occurred must be shown separately.3
Against whom is the price claim directed?
| Relationship or event | Likely respondent | Core issue to be examined |
|---|---|---|
| Transfer not carried out despite a valid contract | The contracting party who undertook the duty of performance. | Breach of obligation, maturity, default, fault and the legal consequence chosen. |
| Payment made under an invalid transaction | The person who owes the refund. | Who was enriched, by what amount and without what legal ground. |
| Agent not handing over the sale proceeds | The agent who owes an account and delivery. | The amount collected, instructions, set-off and payments made. |
| Causing the loss of the immovable by an unlawful act | The person responsible for the act, or the persons, if the conditions are met. | Unlawfulness, fault, loss and an adequate causal link. |
| Loss arising from the keeping of the land registry | The State, under the separate liability regime within TMK Article 1007. | Registry activity, loss and causation; the distinction from a claim against a private person. |
The focus of this review is on price and damages claims directed at private persons. The State's liability under TMK Article 1007 is not a guarantee that may be invoked automatically merely because collection from a private person has not been possible; it has its own conditions.23
Why is the current owner not always the debtor of the money?
That an immovable is registered in a person's name at the land registry does not show that the price paid by the claimant was received by that person. In particular, where the later buyer and the original seller are different, the respondent of the title deed claim and the respondent of the contract or refund claim may be separated. The entire loss cannot be placed on a good-faith later buyer merely on the ground that he or she is the current owner.
If more than one person took part in the process, each person's conduct and the ground of liability must be stated. Joint and several liability likewise does not arise merely because the persons are in the same chain of sale. Joint causation of the loss, or another link of liability required by the law, is investigated.
What is an alternative claim, and how are the title deed and monetary claims ordered?
HMK Article 111 allows several claims against the same defendant to be asserted in the same petition by setting up a relationship of principal and subsidiary between them. There must be a legal or economic connection between the claims. The court cannot examine and decide the subsidiary claim unless it has rejected the principal claim on the merits.1
In a title deed dispute, this structure can be set up so that, if the conditions are met, cancellation of the title deed and registration are examined first and, if that claim is not accepted on the merits, a monetary claim based on a specific legal ground is examined. To whom the monetary claim is directed, for what, within what scope, and the request for interest, must be clear. An alternative claim (terditli talep) does not mean that two claims are collected together for the same loss.
Are claims directed at different defendants also automatically alternative?
No. The text of HMK Article 111 is based on claims against the same defendant. If the title deed is claimed from the current owner and money from the earlier seller, joinder of parties, subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction and the conditions for hearing the claims together must be examined separately. Merely putting the heading “alternative” on the petition does not resolve these issues.
For example, if the current owner and the contracting party are different, the facts directed at each and the claims for relief should be shown separately. It should be made clear which claim the court will examine in which order and for which claim another procedural route is needed. Claiming the same amount from all defendants without explaining the link of liability does not create a safe solution.
Can the court award money in place of the title deed of its own motion?
Under HMK Article 26, the court is bound by the claim. That only cancellation of the title deed and registration has been requested does not give the judge authority, in every case, to award the price or damages of his or her own motion. A judge’s making a legal characterization is different from creating another claim for relief that has never been asserted.1
For this reason, it is important to evaluate the likely second claim when the case is filed. The possibility that recovering the title deed will not be possible, because of a third party's acquisition or another reason, should not be left to be considered for the monetary claim only years later.
What did the unification-of-case-law decision of May 8, 2026 change?
The decision of the Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law of the Court of Cassation, dated May 8, 2026, E.2021/8, K.2026/1, held that a claim not contained in the statement of claim cannot be brought into the case by partial amendment (ıslah). The decision was published in the Official Gazette of June 30, 2026, No. 33296.4
The risk of the approach “If it fails, we will add damages later”
The assumption that an independent monetary claim never asserted can be added by partial amendment in a file that initially contains only a title deed claim is not safe in light of this decision. For this reason, setting up the events and the legal results sought correctly in the initial petition has become even more important.
The decision also makes necessary the distinction between increasing the amount of an existing monetary claim and adding a new claim that has not been made the subject of the case. General information in the form of “Amendment can be made” cannot be applied without determining which procedural act is being changed.
Does the decision close all routes of change?
No. The subject of the decision is the addition of a new claim by partial amendment. Full amendment, the express consent of the other party, filing a separate case, and the routes of conversion specially recognized by law are assessed within their own conditions. They also have separate consequences such as time limits, costs, jurisdiction and lis pendens; one is not the automatic equivalent of another.14
Because of this distinction, the expression “adding the price by amendment” in an older decision or a sample petition should not be repeated without examining the date of the decision and the concrete procedural act. The current unification-of-case-law decision should be taken directly into account when planning the claims.
Why is HMK Article 125 separate in a sale during the case?
If the defendant transfers the subject matter of the case to a third party after the case has been filed, the special option in HMK Article 125 arises. Within its conditions, the claimant may continue the case against the transferee or convert the case into an action for damages against the transferor. This is not a general right to add, at any time, every claim that was not present at the outset.1
The special provision depends on the event of transfer occurring during the case. A transfer before the case was filed, a claim directed at the wrong person from the outset, or a different obligation relationship cannot be resolved automatically by the same provision. The date of transfer must be established from the official record and the election must be made in accordance with procedure.
Why do price, refund and calculation of loss give different results?
The expression “the price of the immovable” can mean at least three different things: the return of money that was paid, the compensation of loss arising from non-performance of the contract, or the compensation of the value of assets lost through a tortious act. The calculation of these claims is not the same.2
Refund of the price paid
In the refund of a payment made under an invalid or terminated relationship, the actual amount paid, the recipient and the legal basis of the refund obligation are first determined. If there are multiple payments, or allegations of return, set-off or allocation to another debt, the net amount is calculated. For each payment item, a receipt, a voucher or other suitable evidence should be shown.
The nominal amount alone of money paid a long time ago and the current market value of the immovable are different from each other. How the loss of value of money is to be treated is discussed in the context of the refund regime and concrete case law; it should not be accepted that the entire present market value of the immovable can be directly claimed in every refund case.
Loss arising from non-performance of the contract
In a breach of a valid contract, the conditions in TBK Article 112 and, in the event of default, Article 125, are significant. Requesting performance, claiming the loss arising from non-performance by giving up performance, and rescission of the contract create different results. The route chosen also affects which items of loss can be claimed.2
The debtor may raise defenses concerning fault and the other conditions of liability; the creditor’s own obligations concerning performance are also investigated. Ignoring a sale price that has not yet been paid when calculating the value of the immovable may create a gain that has not in fact arisen.
Claim for account and delivery from the agent
Under TBK Articles 506 and 508, the agent has duties of loyalty, care, accounting and delivering what he or she has received in connection with the agency. Whether the agent collected the sale price, what amount was passed to the principal, and which expenses the agent may legally set off, must be determined.2
The allegation that the agent made a sale at a low price and the agent's failure to deliver the money collected are not the same loss. In the first, the conditions of the sale transaction and possible loss of value come to the fore; in the second, the account of collection and delivery. The same money should not be claimed again under two separate headings. For the detailed land registry dimension, an assessment can be made together with the review on abuse of a power of attorney.
The value of the immovable as of which date is used?
There is no single valuation date for every money case connected with a title deed. Tort loss, non-performance of the contract, refund, conversion because of a transfer during the case and special statutory claims cannot be regarded as subject to the same calculation method. The court should determine the legal basis of the claim and explain to the expert which date and which element of value are to be investigated.12
Questions the expert must answer first
Which share of the immovable is being valued? Which date is being used? What were the zoning, building, use and legal restrictions on that date? Are the comparables genuine and comparable? Is there an unpaid price, an earlier payment received, or other collection covering the same loss?
Without answering these questions, taking only the average of current listing prices is not sufficient. A listing price may not be the same as an actual sale price. The report must show the source of the data used and the reasons for the adjustments among the comparables. The expert should not be expected to choose, of his or her own motion, the legal ground and the date to be used.
How is double recovery prevented?
The following example is entirely hypothetical; it is neither the outcome of any case nor a general valuation formula. It shows only that collection made for the same loss must be taken into account.
| Hypothetical calculation item | Amount | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Gross loss determined by the court according to the appropriate legal ground and date | 3,000,000 Turkish lira (TL) | It is assumed that the method by which this amount was found has been separately proved. |
| Payment previously made for the same loss | 600,000 TL | It is assumed that there is no separate and unrelated debt payment. |
| Principal loss remaining in this simple example | 2,400,000 TL | Interest, other set-offs and additional loss are outside this example. |
The aim is to restore the person to the asset position that the law requires to be protected. The immovable itself, the full monetary equivalent of the same loss, and another payment covering the same loss again cannot be collected together without limit. By contrast, if there is a separate loss not covered by the return of the immovable, it is assessed with its conditions and its non-overlap shown separately.
From which date is interest claimed?
The start of interest is not the date of the case in every event. TBK Article 117 regulates different conditions of default for a due debt, a formal notice, an agreed performance date, a tort and unjust enrichment. In the default of a good-faith person enriched without cause, the requirement of notice is also separately important.2
The claim must state the principal, the type of interest, the start date and the event relied on. A commercial relationship, a foreign-currency debt, the arrangement in the contract and the applicable legislation may produce different results. A single percentage should not be written into all files without investigating the current rate. It should also be checked whether the increase in value included in the loss calculation and the calculation of interest or additional loss compensate the same loss twice.
Is the limitation period calculated separately for the monetary claim?
Yes. The position of the in rem claim aimed at correcting the land registry as to time does not of itself determine the period for a claim arising from agency, contract, tort or unjust enrichment. The general ten years in TBK Article 146, the five years for agency claims in Article 147/5, and the two- and ten-year provisions in Articles 72 and 82 are examined within their own conditions.2
There may be other periods for special types of contract. It therefore cannot be said that “The title deed case is pending, so all periods for damages are preserved.” Against which person which claim was asserted, and the effect of the earlier application on that claim, must be assessed separately. The dates of maturity, of learning, of the act and of enrichment should not be merged into a single start date.
For a monetary claim, is an injunction or a precautionary attachment requested?
An injunction aimed at protecting registration of the title deed in the claimant’s name and a precautionary attachment securing collection of a monetary claim are different. If the conditions in İİK Article 257 and following are met, a precautionary attachment may be considered. Because there is a monetary claim, an automatic prohibition on transfer cannot be imposed on all of the defendant’s immovables.5
The request for protection is examined as to the nature of the claim, maturity, security and prima facie proof. When the claim changes, it should also be reviewed whether the scope of the earlier injunction covers the new monetary claim. Provisional protection does not take the place of a claim directed at the right person and with its legal basis explained in the main case.
Can a damages judgment be put into enforcement before it becomes final?
In the enforcement of judgments relating to a right in rem over an immovable, the finality requirement in HMK Articles 350/2 and 367/2 is important. However, that the name of the case includes “cancellation of the title deed and registration” does not mean that every monetary ruling given in the outcome is necessarily subject to the same regime.1
The Civil General Assembly decision of June 24, 2026
In its decision of June 24, 2026, E.2025/704, K.2026/407, the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation examined a dispute in which the immovable changed hands by forced sale during the case and the judgment awarded a monetary claim. The majority, taking as its basis that the judgment to be enforced affected not the land registry but the assets in monetary terms, accepted that enforcement could proceed without a finality requirement.6
The distinction in paragraph 19 of the decision focuses on the nature of the judgment rather than the title of the case. The dissenting view regarded the fact that a discussion of a right in rem had taken place as sufficient for finality; the majority did not adopt this approach. The decision does not mean that a genuine registration ruling concerning a right in rem can be enforced before becoming final.
For this reason, in an enforcement assessment, the operative part, the acceptance and rejection sections, the independence of the monetary claim and any other elements requiring finality should be read together. The older statement that “All damages in a title deed case cannot be enforced before becoming final” should not be applied without taking this current distinction into account.
Conclusion
When the title deed cannot be recovered, there is the possibility of a monetary claim; but this possibility requires a separate legal and procedural examination. The right defendant, a claim set up from the outset, the ground of liability, the valuation date, set-offs and time limits should be dealt with together. In particular, the 2026 decisions on partial amendment and on enforcement have made the direct use of old examples problematic. In the concrete file, the order in which, against whom and within what scope the title deed and monetary claims will be asserted should be determined from the outset.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I lose the title deed case, does the court award money automatically?
No. The monetary claim must be asserted in accordance with procedure, directed at the right person, and its legal conditions proved.
Does the person holding the title deed always pay the price as well?
No. The current owner, the party to the contract and the person who received the price may be different. The liability of each person is examined according to his or her own legal ground.
Can I request the title deed and damages in the same petition?
If the conditions are met, yes. In an alternative claim, the requirements of HMK Article 111 concerning the same defendant, a legal or economic connection, and the order of examination are taken into account. Different defendants are assessed separately.
Can I add damages later to a case in which I requested only the title deed?
Adding a new claim not present at the outset by partial amendment is not accepted in light of the unification-of-case-law decision of May 8, 2026. Other procedural routes and special provisions such as HMK Article 125 are subject to separate conditions.
Are damages always the current market value of the immovable?
No. Refund, breach of contract and tort may require different calculations. The valuation date and the type of loss are determined according to the legal basis.
Does filing a title deed case also preserve the limitation period for a monetary claim against the agent?
Not in every case. The subject, the period of the claim directed at the agent, and the effect of the earlier application on this claim must be examined separately.
For the same loss, can I get both the whole immovable and its price?
Collection that compensates the same loss twice is not possible. If a separate loss is alleged, its basis and that it does not overlap with earlier compensation must be shown.
Can a monetary ruling given at the end of a title deed case be enforced before it becomes final?
It depends on the nature of the judgment. The Civil General Assembly (HGK) decision of June 24, 2026 did not require finality for a judgment producing only a monetary result in the concrete case; this result cannot be generalized to all registration rulings.
Sources and legal bases
1. Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Articles 26, 107, 111, 125, 141, 176–182, 350 and 367.
2. Law No. 6098 Turkish Code of Obligations (Türk Borçlar Kanunu), in particular Articles 49–52, 61, 72, 77–82, 112, 117–125, 146–149, 506 and 508.
3. Law No. 4721 Turkish Civil Code (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Articles 1007, 1023–1025.
4. Court of Cassation Grand General Assembly for Unification of Case Law, May 8, 2026, E.2021/8, K.2026/1; Official Gazette, June 30, 2026, No. 33296. Copy of the Official Gazette issue on the TBB site.
5. Law No. 2004 on Enforcement and Bankruptcy (İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Article 257 and following.
6. Court of Cassation Civil General Assembly, June 24, 2026, E.2025/704, K.2026/407, in particular paragraphs 19–22 of the reasoning and the operative part.