Background
The plaintiff entered into an agreement with a real estate developer concerning the purchase, sale, and brokerage of various independent units in a multi-phase construction project located in İzmir province. Under the arrangement, the plaintiff was authorized to sell units to third-party buyers at a 13% commission plus VAT. Of the 15 units covered by the agreement, the plaintiff sold 14 to third parties and purchased one itself; 8 units were duly transferred and delivered, but 7 remained undelivered and untransferred despite the plaintiff’s performance of its obligations.
On 14 May 2025, the plaintiff filed suit before Karşıyaka Commercial Court of First Instance (Case No. 2025/570), seeking (i) cancellation of the title registry entries and registration of two specific units in the plaintiff’s name, or alternatively (ii) payment of at least USD 10,000 plus interest. Simultaneously, the plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) over those units to freeze their legal status during litigation, without requiring security.
The developer opposed the request, arguing, among other things, that the claims were time-barred, that the relationship was one of agency rather than assignment of receivables, that a USD-denominated claim was legally impermissible, and that the company had transferred units to buyers whenever payment was received. On 17 December 2025, the trial court issued an interlocutory order denying the injunction, finding that the two units in question were already registered in the names of third parties who were not parties to the litigation, making an injunction procedurally impermissible.
The Court’s Holding
The İzmir Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal on the merits pursuant to Article 353(1)(b)(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK). The appellate chamber held that the trial court’s denial of the preliminary injunction was correct in both procedure and substance, and identified no violation of law warranting reversal.
The chamber reaffirmed the governing framework under HMK Article 389: a preliminary injunction requires (1) an underlying right in dispute and (2) an injunction ground — namely, a credible risk that a change in circumstances would make enforcement of a future judgment significantly more difficult, impossible, or delayed. Critically, however, the court emphasized that an injunction must concern the subject matter of the dispute itself, and may not be granted in a way that restricts the property rights of persons who are not parties to the proceedings. Because the land registry records showed that both units were already titled to third parties — not the defendant developer — as of the date the suit was filed, any injunction freezing those titles would improperly burden non-party owners in violation of HMK Article 389.
The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the mere transfer of property to third parties cannot be a basis for refusing an injunction, and that courts should instead investigate whether those third parties acquired title in good faith under Article 1023 of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK). The appellate chamber found this argument unpersuasive at the interlocutory stage: granting the injunction at this point would itself restrict the rights of non-party titleholders, which is procedurally impermissible regardless of the ultimate merits. The decision is final and not subject to further appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A preliminary injunction in a title cancellation action cannot be directed at properties already registered to persons who are not named as defendants; doing so would restrict non-party rights in violation of HMK Article 389.
- The plaintiff’s good-faith/bad-faith argument under TMK Article 1023 — which protects third-party acquirers who rely in good faith on the land registry — is a merits question for the main trial, not a reason to grant a preliminary injunction against non-party titleholders at the interlocutory stage.
- The alternative monetary claim (USD 10,000 in damages) does not, of itself, justify an injunction over real property; money claims are ordinarily secured by attachment (ihtiyati haciz) rather than a property injunction (ihtiyati tedbir) under Turkish procedural law.
- The appellate court’s decision is rendered as final (kesin) under HMK Articles 391(3) and 362(1)(f), foreclosing further ordinary appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces a strict procedural boundary in Turkish civil practice: courts will not use the preliminary-injunction mechanism to freeze title over real property when the registered owners are absent from the litigation. Plaintiffs in real estate disputes who discover that a developer has already transferred contested units to downstream buyers must join those third-party owners as defendants — or pursue separate proceedings — before a property-specific injunction can issue. Attempting to obtain an injunction against the developer alone, once title has passed, is procedurally futile.
The ruling also draws a clear line between two forms of interim relief: property injunctions (ihtiyati tedbir) are confined to the subject matter of the dispute and the parties before the court, while monetary claims require attachment proceedings (ihtiyati haciz). Practitioners advising clients in multi-unit real estate transactions should note that delayed enforcement of transfer obligations — allowing a developer to re-sell units to good-faith third parties — may leave the aggrieved party with only a damages remedy, not specific performance via title correction.