Actions for the determination of fixtures (muhdesat) are of significant importance, particularly in proceedings involving the dissolution of co-ownership (izale-i şuyu), urban transformation projects, and expropriation processes, as they serve to determine the ownership of structures or planted elements situated on immovable property. In practice, disputes frequently arise concerning the legal nature of fixtures, the concept of integral parts, the function of the declarations section in the land registry, the conditions for filing such actions, the burden of proof, and limitation periods. As Uzunpınar & Tüfek Law Firm, in this comprehensive study we examine the concept of fixtures in light of the Turkish Civil Code and the precedents of the Court of Cassation, the circumstances under which an action for the determination of fixtures may be filed, the rights and obligations of the parties, and the scope of claims based on unjust enrichment. In the field of real estate law, professional legal assistance is essential to prevent loss of rights in fixture-related disputes.

1.) What Is the Legal Basis and Strategic Importance of the Concept of Fixtures (Muhdesat)?

 

The fundamental distinguishing characteristic of a fixture (muhdesat) is its non-temporary nature. Under the Turkish Civil Code ("TCC"), classifying a construction or improvement as a fixture means that it has become an integral part of the immovable property and that ownership thereof, as a rule, passes to the landowner. This principle constitutes the starting point for balancing the legal interests of the landowner and the person who supplied the materials or constructed the improvement.

2.) What Conditions Must a Structure or Plant Meet to Be Considered a Fixture?

 

Not every construction activity or planting operation qualifies as a fixture. For a structure or plant to be regarded as a fixture, the following cumulative requirements must be satisfied:

 1. It Must Constitute a Structure or a Plant : Buildings, walls, bridges, trees, vineyards, and similar constructions or plantings fall within this category.

However, as expressly emphasized in the case law of the Court of Cassation, willow and poplar trees do not possess a permanent character because they are cultivated to be cut down and utilized once they reach a certain level of maturity. Consequently, such trees are regarded as movable property rather than integral parts of the land and therefore cannot be the subject of a fixture determination action. Likewise, repair or completion expenses incurred on an existing structure do not constitute fixtures; rather, they are considered necessary or beneficial expenses.

 

2.Permanence Requirement (Objective and Subjective Elements)

The structure or plant must be physically attached to the land and the person who created it must have intended it to remain permanently.For example, a barn built on a permanent foundation may constitute a fixture, whereas a tent, a prefabricated construction-site building, or removable installations generally do not.

3. Unlawfulness Requirement

 

Fixtures generally arise without the existence of a valid contractual relationship between the parties (such as a construction contract or mandate agreement) and are created under circumstances that are legally unauthorized.

 

3.) How Does the Classification of a Fixture as an “Integral Part” Affect Property Rights?

 

By its legal nature, a fixture constitutes an integral part pursuant to Article 684/II of the Turkish Civil Code.

 

Once this legal status is acquired, the principle that “what is attached to the land follows the land” applies. Accordingly, the independent ownership right of the material owner over the structure ceases, and the structure becomes part of the ownership of the land itself.

 

After this stage, no independent real right over the fixture can exist separately from ownership of the land.

 

4.) What Does It Mean for a Fixture to Be Recorded in the “Declarations Section” of the Land Registry?

 

Pursuant to Article 19/II of the Cadastre Law, the owner of the fixture, the nature of the fixture, and the date on which it was created are recorded in the declarations section of the land registry.

 

The primary purpose of this registration is to ensure publicity and facilitate proof.

 

However, there is considerable terminological confusion in practice. Although the Court of Cassation occasionally and incorrectly refers to such registration as an “annotation” (şerh), the correct legal characterization is a declaration (beyan).

 

Unlike annotations, declarations do not establish a new real right and do not strengthen a personal right with real effect. In legal doctrine, views suggesting that a declaration prevents the integration of ownership have been criticized as being inconsistent with the fundamental principles of property law.

 

5.) What Is an Action for the Determination of Fixtures and How Is Its Legal Nature Defined?

 

An action for the determination of fixtures is a declaratory action aimed at establishing through judicial proceedings who created a structure or plant located on an immovable property, when it was created, and under what circumstances.

 

The legal nature of this action is purely declaratory. The court does not create a new ownership right; rather, it determines an existing factual situation and the related personal rights arising therefrom.

 

It should be emphasized that a court cannot rule that ownership of the fixture belongs to the claimant. Instead, the court must determine that the fixture was created by the claimant.

 

According to the Court of Cassation, even where the claimant requests a declaration of ownership, the court may nevertheless issue a determination regarding the authorship or attribution of the fixture based on the principle that “the greater includes the lesser.”

 

6.) According to the Court of Cassation, In Which Exceptional Circumstances May an Action for the Determination of Fixtures Be Filed?

 

To prevent courts from being occupied with general declaratory actions, the Court of Cassation limits the filing of such actions to the following exceptional situations:

 

Pending Action for Dissolution of Co-Ownership (Izale-i Şuyu): A partition or sale process among co-owners must already be underway.

Urban Transformation Proceedings under Law No. 6306: Particularly during the process of determining whether a building is classified as a risky structure.

Expropriation Proceedings: Where the administration has initiated valuation procedures concerning the immovable property.

 

7.) Who May Act as Plaintiff and Defendant in an Action for the Determination of Fixtures?

 

Plaintiff: The person who personally constructed the fixture or that person's heirs.

 

Defendants: All co-owners of the immovable property other than the plaintiff.

 

In dissolution of co-ownership proceedings, parties who unequivocally accept the claimant's assertions regarding the fixture may not need to be named as defendants.

 

Transfer of Shares During Litigation (Article 125 of the Code of Civil Procedure)

 

If a co-owner transfers his or her share to a third party while the action is pending, the claimant may:

 

Continue the action against the new owner who acquired the share; or

Convert the action into a claim for damages against the former owner who transferred the share.

 

 

8.) Who Bears the Burden of Proof and What Evidence May Be Used to Prove a Fixture?

 

As a general rule, the burden of proof rests with the claimant, who must establish the facts upon which the claim is based.

 

Since actions for the determination of fixtures involve the establishment of factual circumstances, virtually all forms of evidence may be submitted, including:

 

Witness testimony,

Site inspections,

Expert reports,

Oaths,

Local expert witnesses.

 

Entries contained in the declarations section of the land registry constitute a rebuttable presumption regarding the ownership or attribution of the fixture.

 

The claimant may rebut this presumption by proving, through any admissible evidence, that the structure was constructed on his or her own behalf and at his or her own expense.

 

If an opposing party formally waives objections or admits the claim, the evidentiary process comes to an end.

 

9.) What Are the Time Limits and Limitation Rules Applicable to Fixture Rights?

 

The most critical limitation concerning actions for the determination of fixtures is set forth in Article 12/III of the Cadastre Law.

 

Once ten years have elapsed from the finalization of cadastral records, claims relating to fixtures based on causes existing prior to the cadastre process can no longer be asserted.

 

Because this is a forfeiture period (hak düşürücü süre), it must be considered by the court ex officio.

 

According to the established case law of the Court of Cassation, even if the defendant acknowledges the existence of the fixture after the expiration of this ten-year period, such acknowledgment produces no legal effect and the action must be dismissed on procedural grounds.

 

The purpose of this rule is to protect the stability of property rights and the reliability of the land registry system.

10.) Under What Circumstances and How May a Claim Based on Unjust Enrichment Be Asserted?

 

Once a fixture becomes an integral part of the immovable property and ownership thereof passes to the landowner, the person who created the fixture may claim compensation for the resulting increase in the landowner's assets under the provisions governing unjust enrichment (Articles 77 et seq. of the Turkish Code of Obligations).

 

When calculating compensation, the Court of Cassation does not rely solely on the construction costs of the structure (materials and labor expenses). Instead, it adopts a proportional valuation method.

 

Accordingly, the recoverable amount corresponds to the increase in value that the fixture contributes to the overall value of the immovable property at the relevant date. The good faith or bad faith of the enriched party is also a significant factor in determining the scope of restitution. The amount to be reimbursed is the additional value that the improvement (muhdesat) adds to the total sale price of the immovable property (or to its market value as of the date of the action). In determining the scope of enrichment, the defendant’s good faith or bad faith is a fundamental factor in defining the limits of restitution.