21.02.2026 16:41
The Court of Cassation's 7th Civil Chamber made an important decision regarding the right of pre-emption in joint ownership. The Court stated that a lawsuit could be filed after the sale of properties where there is no actual partition, emphasizing that a co-owner who does not object at the time of sale may later claiming rights could be contrary to the principle of good faith.
The Court of Cassation's 7th Civil Chamber made a noteworthy decision regarding the exercise of the right of pre-emption (shufa) in properties subject to shared ownership. In the decision published in the Official Gazette dated January 21, 2026, it was stated that a pre-emption lawsuit could be filed after the sale in properties where there is no actual partition; however, it was emphasized that the co-owner who does not object at the time of sale may later assert this right, which could be contrary to the principle of good faith.
The decision is particularly significant as a precedent for potential disputes that may arise in properties with multiple shareholders due to inheritance or joint purchase.
UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES DOES THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION (SHUFA) ARISE?
The right of pre-emption, known to the public as "shufa right," grants other shareholders the opportunity to purchase the share of one of the shareholders in shared ownership when it is sold to a third party. In the Court of Cassation's decision, it was reminded that this right is a limitation of property rights arising from the law and has a private law nature.
Accordingly, when a shareholder transfers their share to an external buyer, the other shareholders can purchase the share in priority through legal action when the legal conditions are met.
IS THERE ACTUAL PARTITION OR NOT?
In the disputed case, one of the shareholders sold their share in a jointly owned field to a third party. The other shareholder filed a lawsuit to exercise their right of pre-emption after the sale. The selling party argued that there was actual partition in the property and that everyone used their section within certain limits. The first-instance court accepted this defense and rejected the case.
However, the file came before the Court of Cassation upon the Ministry of Justice's appeal in the interest of the law. In the expert report submitted to the file, it was determined that the field was vacant, not cultivated, and there was no actual use separated by boundary lines among the shareholders.
EMPHASIS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH
The Court of Cassation's 7th Civil Chamber stated that the right of pre-emption could generally be exercised in properties where there is no actual partition. However, it also established an important criterion in its decision.
The Chamber expressed that in a situation where the property is specifically divided among the shareholders and everyone uses their own part, the co-owner who does not object during the transaction of the selling shareholder cannot later assert the right of pre-emption, as this would not be in accordance with the principle of good faith in the Turkish Civil Code.
Concluding that there was no actual partition in the concrete case, the Court of Cassation stated that the right of pre-emption and other conditions needed to be re-evaluated, thus overturning the local court's decision.