What does an interim injunction protect in a land title action?
Article 389 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) allows provisional protection where there is a danger that a change in the existing situation will make it considerably harder or impossible to obtain the right, or that delay will cause serious harm. In a land title dispute, the aim is most often to prevent the disputed property from being transferred to someone else, or encumbered with new real rights, while the proceedings continue.1
An injunction is not a final determination that the plaintiff is already the owner. The defendant also holds a property right; the protection must be proportionate to the subject of the dispute and the concrete danger. For this reason, restricting the whole property in an action concerning a single share, or requesting a general ban over the defendant's entire assets because of a dispute over one property, requires separate justification.
Which facts make the likelihood of a sale concrete?
A recent sale advertisement, talks with brokers, successive transfers, an attempt to establish a new mortgage, or correspondence showing that the defendant is preparing to sell may support the need for an injunction. However, merely saying "the defendant may sell" may not be enough in every case. The document on which the risk is based, and why a sale would make the plaintiff's right harder to obtain, should be explained.
The other side's defense is also taken into account. For example, an advertisement prepared for another property may not show that a sale is being prepared for the disputed parcel. An injunction applied to a right that does not belong to the defendant creates problems both for enforceability and for the rights of third parties. The current owner, block, parcel, independent unit and share details should be verified before the request is made.
The difference between an interim injunction, an annotation of pending litigation and a precautionary attachment
| Protection or entry | Basic function | Consequence for a sale |
|---|---|---|
| Interim injunction prohibiting transfer | To temporarily prevent the disputed property from changing hands. | May prevent voluntary transfers within the scope of the decision; the operative part of the decision and its implementation at the land registry are examined together. |
| Annotation protecting a disputed right | To reflect the dispute and the effect provided by law in the register. | Not every annotation is an absolute ban on sale; its effect on later acquisitions depends on its basis. |
| Provisional registration annotation | To secure the alleged real right, or the completion of a missing document, in the cases under Article 1011 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). | The conditions of the annotation and its effect on a registration made later are assessed separately. |
| Precautionary attachment | To secure the collection of a monetary claim under the statutory conditions. | Does not resolve in whose name the title will stand; it aims to protect the claim through the debtor's assets. |
| Annotation restricting disposition during mediation | To protect the settlement process under the conditions of Article 17/B of Law No. 6325. | May apply for at most three months, with the written agreement of the parties and the mediator's record. |
When TMK Articles 1010 and 1011, HMK Article 389 and following, İİK Article 257 and Law No. 6325 Article 17/B are considered together, it becomes clear that these tools cannot be used in place of one another.1 2 3 4
Is a "defendant" entry the same as a "cannot be sold" entry?
Not always. In practice, different entries may be referred to in everyday language as an "annotation of pending litigation." What matters is what the court decided and with what legal effect it was entered in the register. An entry that makes the dispute visible and a prohibition on the land registry directorate carrying out a transfer are different consequences.
Annotations under TMK Article 1010 matter because a restriction on the power of disposition can be asserted against those who later acquire rights in the property. However, it should not be assumed that the same result follows for every kind of transaction, for earlier rights and for compulsory sale. In particular, the status of existing mortgages and attachments must be investigated separately from the scope of the injunction.2
How is prima facie proof provided for an injunction request?
HMK Article 390 requires the applicant to prove the right relied on and the ground for the injunction on a prima facie basis. It is not expected that all the evidence in the main action be collected; on the other hand, the mere fact that an action has been filed is not enough to show that the right exists. The court should be given initial material that makes the claim serious and concrete.1
The claim to a right and urgency must be explained separately
In a claim of a fiduciary transaction, a signed return protocol, in a claim of abuse of a power of attorney, the power of attorney together with the payment records, and in a claim of incapacity, medical records close to the date of the transaction may support the claim to a right. A sale advertisement or a current preparation for transfer may show urgency. These two groups of evidence serve different functions.
For example, the existence of a sale advertisement alone does not prove that the plaintiff holds a right in the property. Conversely, a strong contract does not in every case justify the most severe ban on disposition. The request should present both the appearance of the right and the concrete result that delay would cause.
The request must be capable of implementation at the land registry
The current registry details of the property, which share is disputed and which transactions are sought to be restricted should be stated clearly. Instead of broad wording such as "prevention of every kind of transaction," the need should be explained with respect to a sale, a transfer or the creation of a particular real right. The protection requested must be connected with the right sought at the end of the action.
This clarity also reduces implementation problems between the court and the land registry directorate. If an error in the block or independent unit number is noticed after the decision is issued, correcting the document and applying it to the right entry may be delayed. The address in the petition does not by itself replace the description of the property in the land registry.
From which court is an injunction requested?
Before an action is filed, an injunction is requested from the court with subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction over the main dispute; after the action is filed, it is requested from the court hearing the case. In disputes concerning the property itself, the exclusive territorial jurisdiction rule of HMK Article 12, based on the place where the property is located, is important. As to subject-matter jurisdiction, it must be determined separately whether the dispute falls within the field of the general court, a consumer court, a family court or another specialized court.1
Can a decision be made without hearing the other side?
Where immediate protection of the right is necessary, an injunction may be ordered without hearing the other side. This possibility does not mean that the other side's right of defense is entirely removed. There are safeguards in the form of a later objection and, depending on the conditions, legal remedies. The applicant's claim of urgency must also be explained with documents and facts.
If the court rejects the injunction request, the legal remedy provision in HMK Article 391 applies; if the injunction is granted, whether the decision was issued in the presence or in the absence of the other side, and the objection stage, are assessed separately. The fact that the main action will conclude only years later does not make review of these provisional protection decisions unnecessary.
How much is the security, and when may it not be required?
A person requesting an injunction must, as a rule, provide security for the damages that the other side and third parties may suffer if the request proves unjustified. HMK Article 392 allows the security to be waived, with reasons stated, where the request is based on an official document or other conclusive evidence, or where the circumstances so require. A person benefiting from legal aid does not need to provide security.1
Is fifteen percent security required in every land title action?
No. The law does not prescribe a fixed percentage for all land title injunctions. The court assesses the probable damage and the scope of the protection. The total value of the property, the disputed share and the economic effect of the injunction may differ. It would not be correct to present the rate applied in a particular case as a universal rule.
An objection to security should not merely say that the amount is high; it should explain why it is disproportionate or which damage is being secured. The defendant may also request that the injunction be modified or lifted in return for appropriate security. Acceptance is not automatic; the concrete situation is assessed within the framework of HMK Article 395.
Steps to take after an injunction has been obtained
Issuing the decision and implementing it are separate stages. Under HMK Article 393, implementation must be requested within one week of the pronouncement (tefhim) or service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction. The statement seen in older texts, "one week from the date of the decision," does not reflect the current provision. Even if the main action has been filed on time, failing to request implementation may cause the injunction to lapse by itself.1
Is it enough for the court to write to the land registry?
HMK Article 393 provides that implementation is requested from the competent enforcement office, and that the court may also assign the court clerk's office by stating so in its decision. In the particular decision, the following should be followed together: who will carry out the implementation, whether the security has been deposited, whether the letter has been sent, and whether the entry at the land registry has been confirmed by a reply on record.
Cengiz Serhat Konuralp's 2025 study examines the debate in the literature on whether a separate implementation request is necessary for certain kinds of injunctions. This debate does not justify disregarding the statutory one-week period. Documenting the implementation request within the time limit and verifying that the entry has been made provides a more secure file follow-up than relying on the mere existence of the court decision.6
The second, two-week period for a pre-action injunction
Under HMK Article 397, for an injunction issued before an action is filed, the main action must be filed within two weeks of the date on which implementation was requested. In addition, the document showing that the action has been filed must be submitted to the officer implementing the decision, placed in the file, and a receipt obtained. It should not be assumed that all the supplementary steps have been taken merely because a new case file exists on UYAP.1
If the dispute is subject to mediation as a condition precedent to litigation, the special rule in Article 18/A/16 of Law No. 6325 is taken into account: the time limit for filing the action does not run from the application to the mediation office until the final record. However, this provision cannot be applied automatically to every land title action in which mediation is not mandatory.4
Practical table of injunction time limits
| Stage | Period | Document to check |
|---|---|---|
| Request for implementation | One week from pronouncement or service. | Pronouncement record or service document and the implementation request record. |
| Completion of a pre-action injunction | Two weeks from the implementation request. | Action filing document, submission to the implementing officer and the receipt obtained. |
| Other side's objection to an injunction issued in its absence | From implementation if it was present, otherwise one week from service of the record. | Implementation record and service document. |
| Objection by a third party whose interest is clearly violated | One week from learning of the injunction. | Record showing the date of learning and the affected right. |
| Waiting period for return of security | The requirement that no damages action be filed within one month of finalization of the judgment on the merits or lifting of the injunction. | Finalization or lifting record and status of any damages action. |
| Limitation period for damages from an unjustified injunction | One year under HMK Article 399(3). | Date of finalization of the judgment or lifting of the injunction. |
The one-month condition for return of security and the one-year limitation period for damages are different. Return of the security does not mean in every case that the right to damages has also ended.1
How is an injunction objected to, and how is it lifted?
In an objection to an injunction issued without hearing the other side, concrete grounds are given as to the conditions of the injunction, the court's jurisdiction and the security. In an objection by a third party, the scope that HMK Article 394 gives that third party is also taken into account. An objection does not stop implementation unless the court decides otherwise.1
For example, restriction of rights outside the disputed share, action taken on the wrong parcel, a current record showing there is no danger of sale, or a serious dispute over the document on which the request is based may call for assessment. The documents supporting the objection should be attached to the objection petition; it should not rest merely on the claim that the main action will be dismissed.
If circumstances change, the initial decision may change
HMK Article 396 allows an injunction to be modified or lifted where a change in the circumstances is proven. The disappearance of the risk, a narrowing of the dispute, or the current effect of the injunction becoming disproportionate may be assessed in this framework. Even if an injunction was justified on the first day, its continuing for years in the same scope is not justified automatically.
A decision to lift must also be notified to the relevant place. The court's decision to lift and the actual removal of the restriction in the land registry are separate procedures. Implementation, for the plaintiff, and lifting, for the defendant, must be followed with the same care.
Can a long-running injunction violate the right to property?
In its decision Seval Başaran, Application No. 2019/14483, December 7, 2022, the Constitutional Court (AYM) assessed an injunction on a property that lasted from November 4, 2013 to April 26, 2019, that is, five years, five months and twenty-two days. This period, considered together with the circumstances of the case, imposed an excessive burden on the applicant and led to a violation of the right to property.5
Does the decision set an automatic five-year upper limit?
No. It cannot be concluded from the decision that "every injunction exceeding five years lapses automatically." The duration of the injunction, its nature, the progress of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties and the actual effect of the restriction are assessed together. What matters is maintaining the balance between the interest protected and the burden borne by the owner.
The fact that HMK Article 397/2 provides that, unless otherwise stated, the injunction continues until the final decision becomes final does not remove the proportionality review either. In a lengthy proceeding, the grounds and the scope can be discussed again. The AYM decision shows that this review must be carried out on the basis of concrete effects.1 5
What happens if the property is sold while the action is pending?
Where there is no valid and implemented ban on transfer, the property may change hands. HMK Article 125 gives the plaintiff certain choices when the defendant transfers the subject of the action: continuing the action against the transferee or converting it into a damages action against the transferor may come into play. A sale therefore does not mean the automatic end of the action in every case.1
The new owner's defenses under substantive law, in particular the conditions of reliance on the land registry and good faith, are assessed separately. The content of the annotation of pending litigation, the date of transfer and the facts known to the transferee are important. The procedural choice under HMK Article 125 and the protection of acquisition under TMK Article 1023 answer different questions.2
If the sale price needs to be attached or only a monetary claim needs to be secured, the protection to be used must also be determined anew. It cannot be accepted that an injunction aimed at recovering the title automatically secures all monetary claims asserted against the defendant.
Conclusion
Protecting the property during the action begins with choosing the right type of protection, and is completed by implementing the decision, entering it in the register and monitoring the conditions for its continuation. A ban on sale, an annotation of pending litigation and a precautionary attachment protecting a monetary claim must be kept apart. An injunction should both protect the plaintiff's right effectively and avoid interfering disproportionately with the rights of the defendant and third parties. The concrete request should be built on the current record of the property and the indicators of danger in the file.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a sale stop automatically when a title cancellation action is filed?
No. A suitable protective decision and its implementation are needed. The filing of an action alone does not create a ban on transfer at the land registry.
Can a property carrying an annotation of pending litigation be sold?
It depends on the legal basis of the annotation and the scope of the court decision. Not every annotation of pending litigation is a ban on sale; its effect against the transferee is examined separately.
Is security always deposited for an injunction?
As a rule, security is required. The reasoned exceptions in HMK Article 392 and the legal aid situation are assessed separately; there is no fixed rate.
Does the one-week implementation period start on the day the decision is written?
Under the current HMK Article 393, it starts with the pronouncement or service of the decision on the party requesting the injunction. The dates of the decision, the service and the request should be checked together.
Is the ban on sale lifted when the injunction is objected to?
It is not lifted automatically. An objection does not stop implementation unless the court decides otherwise.
Is it necessary to check the land registry entry after the court decision?
Yes. It should be verified that an entry consistent with the scope of the decision has been made on the right property and share. Having a decision and having it implemented are not the same thing.
Is an injunction longer than five years automatically unlawful?
No. The AYM's Seval Başaran decision is based on the circumstances of the particular case. Although the duration is important, the proportionality assessment also includes other elements.
Can a person harmed by an unjustified injunction claim damages?
They can, under the conditions in HMK Article 399. Damage, causation and time limits are examined; the one-month rule on the return of security should not be confused with the one-year limitation period for damages.
Sources and legal bases
1. Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 (6100 sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), in particular Art. 12, 125, 389–399.
2. Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (4721 sayılı Türk Medeni Kanunu), Art. 1010–1011, 1023–1024.
3. Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (2004 sayılı İcra ve İflas Kanunu), Art. 257 and following.
4. Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (6325 sayılı Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Art. 17/B, 18/A/16.
5. Constitutional Court, Seval Başaran, Application No. 2019/14483, December 7, 2022, in particular §§ 22–26.
6. Cengiz Serhat Konuralp, “Implementation of an Interim Injunction Decision (İhtiyati Tedbir Kararının Uygulanması)”, Necmettin Erbakan University Faculty of Law Journal (Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), 2025, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1303–1326.