When an heir builds a house, a permanent facility or an orchard on inherited land with his or her own means, that does not make the person the owner of the whole land or the separate title-holder of the structure. On the other hand, it is not correct in every case for the value that person created to be distributed together with the other shares when the property is sold. An action for determination of the ownership of improvements (muhdesat) serves to settle this distinction, particularly in the course of partition and sale. [Source 1, Turkish Civil Code (TMK) Art. 684, 718, 722–729]
Four questions must be answered together for a correct claim: Is the thing alleged really an improvement? By whom and for whose account was it created? Is a separate determination needed today? In which sale or payment transaction will this determination be used? Collecting invoices alone does not settle all of these questions.
What Is an Improvement and What Is Not?
Improvements are values that have the character of integral parts, such as permanent structures and facilities created later on real property and trees planted there. A residence, a barn, a storage building, a permanent irrigation system or fruit trees may fall within this scope depending on their specific features. The legal status of a movable item and that of a facility permanently attached to the land are not the same. [Source 1, TMK Art. 684, 718, 728–729]
Painting an existing building, repairing a roof, replacing windows or ordinary maintenance expenses, on the other hand, are not always counted as independent improvements. They may give rise to a dispute over expenses, increase in value or a receivable. A distinction must be drawn between constructing a new building and doing maintenance to keep using an existing one. Instead of merely stating in the petition that “all of my investments belong to me,” each structure, annex and group of trees should be described separately.
In the case of greenhouses as well, the outcome is not reached on the name alone. The foundation and anchoring system, whether the structure can be dismantled and moved, its intended use, its economic life and its connection to the land are examined. Particularly for agricultural real property, the expertise of the agricultural, construction and, where necessary, mechanical experts must match the dispute. This determination also affects the valuation method.
| Value alleged | Main issue to be examined |
|---|---|
| A separate building or permanent annex built later | Existence and permanence of the structure, the person who built it and the source of financing |
| Fruit trees or a vineyard | Planting period, species, number, age and for whose account it was created |
| Greenhouse and irrigation system | Whether it is a movable item or a permanent facility |
| Paint, maintenance and repair | Whether a claim for expenses or a receivable is needed instead of an improvement |
Does a Determination Decision Create Separate Ownership?
As a rule, ownership of land also covers the integral parts on it. The person who created the improvement and the owner of the land may be different; however, this does not by itself create two separate ownerships of immovable property. Other separate real rights recognized by law, such as the right of superficies (üst hakkı), or the establishment of condominium ownership are different institutions subject to their own conditions. [Source 1, TMK Art. 684, 718, 726]
For this reason, the essential determination in an action concerning an improvement is that the structure or the tree was created by the plaintiff. The decision does not automatically grant a separate title deed for the structure; it does not cure a violation of zoning rules; it does not replace a construction permit or an occupancy permit. An annotation of improvements in the land registry should likewise not be read as a separate real right on its own.
Kemal Erdoğan’s study treats the determination of who created the improvement and the collection of the value of the improvement as separate claims. The existence of a determination decision does not mean that there is a judgment for performance that by itself brings about payment of money. In practice, this distinction matters for framing the relief sought in the action correctly and the route to be taken afterwards. [Source 6]
In Which Cases Is There a Current Legal Interest?
Under Articles 106 and 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), a person seeking a determination must have a current legal interest worthy of protection. This action cannot be brought merely to put on record, in the abstract, who did what in the past in view of family disputes that may possibly arise in the future. Such matters as an action for dissolution of co-ownership, expropriation or other concrete processes that require the value of the improvement to be allocated to the right holder are examined in this respect. [Source 2]
In a decision of the 7th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) dated February 2, 2026, docket (E.) 2025/6180, decision (K.) 2026/480, the absence of a legal interest was emphasized in a case where there was no pending action for dissolution of co-ownership and no expropriation proceeding. The fact that some of the defendants accepted that the plaintiff had built the structure did not remove the court’s obligation to examine whether a current legal interest exists. [Source 3]
This decision should not be read as saying that a legal interest can exist in only two situations. In a decision of the same Chamber dated January 12, 2026, docket (E.) 2025/2017, decision (K.) 2026/168, the fact that the value of the structure was also included in the valuation (kıymet takdiri) in the sale of a share attached because of another co-owner’s debt was regarded as a current risk. The Chamber stated that the co-owner who claims to have created the improvement has a legal interest in seeking a determination and that the claim must also be directed against the enforcement creditor. [Source 4]
What is decisive is that the economic interest in the improvement is concretely and currently affected. The number of the sale file, the valuation report and which share will be sold because of the debt should be tied to the petition. The outcome of acceptance or rejection reached in another case cannot be carried over to the file without seeing these documents.
Who Brings the Action and Against Whom?
A person who claims that he or she, or the person to whom he or she is the legal successor, created the improvement must show a concrete legal interest and entitlement. The typical dispute over inherited real property concerns a structure that one of the heirs built for his or her own account. A building the decedent had built does not become that child’s personal improvement merely because one child used it for a long time.
The position of the co-owner who openly accepts the allegation must be distinguished from that of the co-owner who rejects it. The parties must be determined from the land registry record and the certificates of inheritance; the heirs of a person who dies during the proceedings and other persons whose interests are affected must not be overlooked. In the special situation connected with an enforcement sale, the decision numbered 2026/168 specifically shows that the creditor may need to be joined to the action. [Source 4]
The claim of a third party who holds no share in the land is not automatically treated in the same way as an improvement action among co-owners. The legal basis for creating the structure, the consent of the landowner, good faith, the contract and the possibility of bringing an action for performance must be examined. The claim of a person who builds on another’s land for compensation or, under suitable conditions, to take over the land is subject to separate conditions within the framework of TMK Articles 722–724. [Source 1; Source 6]
Which Evidence Shows Who Created the Improvement?
The party making the allegation, as a rule, proves the facts on which he or she relies. Establishing the existence of the structure and proving that the structure was created for the plaintiff’s own account are separate stages. That a person worked on the construction, provided all of the financing or only followed up the work on behalf of the family does not carry the same legal meaning. [Source 1, TMK Art. 6; Source 2, HMK Art. 190]
First, permits, municipal archives, old aerial and satellite images, photographs, utility subscriptions and cadastral documents showing the construction period can be collected. Next, payment and financing are investigated: bank transactions, contractor agreements, invoices, delivery records and labor payments are evaluated together. It is also taken into account that the person who sends the money and the person who ultimately bears the economic burden may be different.
Witnesses should not be expected to state only conclusions such as “he built the house.” In which period they saw which work, who bought the materials, where they know the payment from and their own observations should be clarified. A neighbor’s knowing the construction date and a contractor’s knowing the source of the payment carry different evidentiary value.
Concreteness is also required in the defense. If it is alleged that the structure was built with the decedent’s money, that it was paid from the family budget, that the plaintiff acted only as an agent, that the expense was a gift or that it was taken into account in an earlier division, documents for these must be shown. Collecting the same amount twice, both in an earlier settlement of accounts and in the sale distribution, must be prevented.
How Are the On-Site Examination and the Expert Review Prepared?
The purpose of the on-site examination (keşif) is not merely to photograph the existing structure. The location of the improvement to be examined on the parcel, its boundaries, size, nature and age must be made concrete. It should not be assumed that all structures on a parcel were built by the same person on the same date. If a new floor was added on an old foundation, whether the first structure and the later addition can be separated is investigated.
The review headings that can be submitted to the court are as follows:
- Showing each alleged structure and group of trees separately on a sketch.
- Comparing the construction or planting period with archive records.
- Separating ordinary maintenance expenses from permanent new values.
- Determining the values of the land and of the improvement on the same basis and as of the same date.
- The effect of wear, zoning status and actual usability on the valuation.
The court-appointed expert provides technical information; the expert does not decide who is right or which legal claim will be accepted. The report must answer the parties’ objections, and the calculation must be capable of being checked by another expert. Under HMK Article 281, the period for objecting to the report is, as a rule, two weeks from notification; the conditions for the additional period permitted by the Code are assessed separately. [Source 2]
How Is the Sale Price Divided?
When the ownership and value of the improvement are accepted or determined by the court, the ratio of the land and the improvement within the total value is calculated in the sale in dissolution of co-ownership. The actual sale price is distributed on the basis of these ratios and the title shares. Deducting from the sale price merely the total of construction invoices paid years ago may not be the correct method. [Source 5]
In a decision of the 7th Civil Chamber dated November 19, 2025, docket (E.) 2025/4979, decision (K.) 2025/4848, it was explained that the total value of the improvement and the property must be taken as the basis when the ratio is set. Making a comparison only with the value of the land share of the person who had the improvement built may distort the ratio and the amount to be paid to the other co-owners. [Source 5]
Hypothetical Distribution Example
Suppose that in a property with three heirs holding equal shares, the land is worth 8 million Turkish lira (TL) and the improvement created only by heir A is worth 2 million TL. Within the total of 10 million TL, the improvement accounts for 20 percent and the land for 80 percent. If the net price taken as the basis for distribution is 9 million TL, the improvement share is 1.8 million TL and the land share is 7.2 million TL.
| Right holder | Because of the improvement | Because of the land share | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1,800,000 TL | 2,400,000 TL | 4,200,000 TL |
| B | 0 TL | 2,400,000 TL | 2,400,000 TL |
| C | 0 TL | 2,400,000 TL | 2,400,000 TL |
This is only an example showing the method. Several improvement owners, different title shares, pledges and attachments, sale expenses or separate disputes over the improvement may change the distribution. The “net price” assumption is not a claim that in all files expenses will be deducted from the same item and in the same order.
Competent Court, Mediation and the Preliminary Question
An action for determination of the ownership of an independent improvement is, as a rule, heard by the civil court of first instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi). In this dispute connected with real property, the jurisdiction of the place where the property is located is taken into account. The jurisdiction of the civil court of peace (sulh hukuk mahkemesi) hearing the action for dissolution of co-ownership must not be confused with the jurisdiction over the action concerning the improvement. [Source 2, Art. 2, 12 and 165]
The improvement claim is expressly stated in the file for dissolution of co-ownership. If the dispute requires a separate action, the action must be brought within the period given and the docket number submitted. The court’s concrete decision on stay pending a preliminary question (bekletici mesele) and on carrying out the sale should be followed. The filing of an improvement action does not, by itself, stop every enforcement or sale transaction. If necessary, it should be explained which risk of harm will be prevented by which measure. [Source 2, Art. 165, 389 et seq.]
Disputes over the division of movables and immovables and over dissolution of co-ownership fall within mediation as a condition precedent to litigation. On the other hand, a request for determination of the ownership of an improvement is not automatically counted as an action for dissolution of co-ownership merely because of its name. The relevant condition for bringing the action should be assessed according to whether the determination, a contract-based claim for money and a claim for division are asserted together or separately. [Source 7, Art. 18/B]
Time Limits, Court Fees and Risks in a Claim for Value
It would be misleading to state a single general time limit for bringing an action that applies to every determination of an improvement. The current legal interest, the period given by the court dealing with the dissolution of co-ownership and the stage of the sale matter. If a claim based on a cause that predates the cadastral survey exists, it is separately examined whether the ten-year time limit for bringing an action (hak düşürücü süre) in Article 12/3 of the Cadastre Law applies. This period cannot be applied without thought to all disputes over improvements. [Source 8]
The statute of limitations for a claim for money is also not the same as for the request for a determination. If unjust enrichment is relied upon, the rule in Article 82 of the Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), two years from the date of learning and in any case ten years from the enrichment, is assessed together with the moment at which the enrichment took place. Treating the completion date of the construction as the starting point of the enrichment in every case may not be correct; claims based on a contract or on special property law provisions are examined separately. [Source 6; Source 9]
In calculating court fees, the value of the whole property and the value of the disputed improvement should not be confused. The disputed value attributable to the defendants’ shares, the nature of the claim and the statements of acceptance are evaluated together. On-site examination, survey and valuation experts, notifications and attorney’s fees should also be budgeted separately. If the outcome is a partial acceptance or rejection, the allocation of expenses may be affected. [Source 2, Art. 323–326]
If a monetary claim is also added to the request for determination, the type of action and the amount claimed should be framed according to the current procedural law. After the amendment that entered into force on July 31, 2026, uncontrolled use of the old HMK Article 107 templates in new actions is not appropriate; there is a transitional provision for earlier actions. [Source 2, Art. 109; Source 10, Art. 19–20 and provisional Art. 1/10]
Conclusion
In a dispute over an improvement, the aim is not to present the structure as a separate title-deeded property but to correctly determine who created it and what economic result will follow in the division. The current legal interest, the right parties, the evidence of construction and financing, and a verifiable valuation must be built together. If one heir’s debt leads to a sale, the [guide on attachment of an inheritance share]() should also be considered.
For related aspects of the subject, you may also look at our articles on compensation for unjust occupation (ecrimisil) and the right of use and inheritance co-ownership and estate disputes and our page on inheritance law and inheritance actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the title deed of the house I built on my father’s land belong to me?
Having had the structure built does not by itself give separate ownership. Ownership of the land must be distinguished from the economic claim arising from the improvement. See the limit of ownership.
Are roof and paint expenses counted as improvements?
Not every maintenance or repair is an improvement. By separating a new permanent value from an ordinary expense, the appropriate route for a receivable is determined. See the scope of improvements.
Can a greenhouse be an improvement?
Its permanence, connection to the ground and movability must be examined technically. The outcome cannot be reached on the name “greenhouse” alone. See the distinction between structures and facilities.
If there is no action for dissolution of co-ownership, can a determination be requested?
It is examined whether there is another concrete current legal interest. The risk arising from an enforcement sale may be an example of this. See legal interest.
Is the acceptance of the other heirs sufficient by itself?
Acceptance does not remove the examination of legal interest and of the proper composition of the parties (taraf teşkili). The express scope of the acceptance and whose interest it affects are also important. See current legal interest.
Must the construction invoices necessarily be in my name?
Invoices are important, but all of the evidence is evaluated together. The main issue is for whose account and with which source the value was created. See documents of proof.
Will I receive all of my construction costs before the sale price is divided?
The total of the invoices is not deducted directly in every case. The ratio of the improvement and the land within the total value, and the sale price, are taken into account. See the distribution example.
Do I bring the action in the civil court of peace?
An action for determination of an independent improvement is, as a rule, before the civil court of first instance. Its connection with a file for dissolution of co-ownership pending before the civil court of peace is established separately. See jurisdiction and process.
Does an improvement action stop the auction by itself?
No. The decision given on stay pending a preliminary question or on a request for protection must be followed separately. See establishing the link with the sale.
Can money be collected immediately with a determination decision?
A determination is not the same as a judgment for payment. Application of the decision in the sale or a separate action for performance may be required. See the result of the determination decision.
Is there a definite statute of limitations for the action?
A determination, an objection concerning the cadastre and a claim for value require different assessments of time limits. See time limits and claims for value.
When can the expert report be objected to?
The rule in HMK Article 281 is two weeks from notification. The objection must make concrete the technical error and the review requested. See expert review.
Sources and legal bases
- Law No. 4721, Turkish Civil Code, in particular Art. 6, 684, 718 and 722–729; consolidated text checked on October 13, 2026.
- Law No. 6100, Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 2, 12, 106–109, 114, 165, 190, 266–281, 323–326, 389 et seq.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 7th Civil Chamber, February 2, 2026, E.2025/6180, K.2026/480; current legal interest and clarification of the claim. Full text of the decision, republished by Consülto.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 7th Civil Chamber, January 12, 2026, E.2025/2017, K.2026/168; sale of a share through enforcement, the improvement and participation of the enforcement creditor in the action. Full text of the decision, republished by Hukuk Asistan.
- Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), 7th Civil Chamber, November 19, 2025, E.2025/4979, K.2025/4848; calculation of the ratio between the values of the improvement and the land. Full text of the decision, republished by Kanun Yolu.
- Kemal Erdoğan, “The Claim for the Value of an Improvement by a Person Who Creates an Improvement on Another’s Land” (“Başkasının Arazisinde Muhdesat Meydana Getiren Kişinin Muhdesat Bedeli Talebi”), Journal of the Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University Faculty of Law (Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi), vol. 27, no. 1, 2023, pp. 69–111. Publication and full text.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes, Art. 18/B.
- Law No. 3402 on Cadastre, in particular Art. 12/3 and 19/2.
- Law No. 6098, Turkish Code of Obligations, Art. 77–82.
- Law No. 7589, text as adopted, amendments to the HMK and transitional provisions; evaluated together with the current consolidated HMK.