Real estate law regulates matters such as the transfer of ownership, partition, and the establishment of various rights over real estate, while also addressing ownership issues related to additional elements on the real estate. Under Turkish law, the determination of the ownership of structures, facilities, or additional elements (accessories) on a real estate constitutes a specific subject of litigation. This lawsuit aims to determine the owner of elements that are not part of the real estate itself and should be assessed independently from it, referred to as the "determination of ownership of accessories case." This article provides a detailed analysis of the legal basis of this case, the application process, the obligations of the parties, practical challenges, and relevant precedents of the Court of Cassation.

Accessories can be defined within the framework of Articles 684 and 718 of the Turkish Civil Code ("TCC") as elements that should be considered separately from the physical or economic integrity of the real estate. For example, a building constructed on a plot of land or a vineyard or orchard planted on farmland are considered accessories. However, the ownership of such structures does not always belong to the owner of the real estate. Consequently, disputes regarding the ownership of accessories may necessitate litigation.

The determination of ownership of accessories case typically arises in the following situations: disputes over the ownership of a structure or facility on a real estate, partition lawsuits, disputes over the payment of compensation for accessories in expropriation processes, or when the ownership of accessories needs to be determined during a sale transaction. Pursuant to Article 106 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"), this is a declaratory lawsuit in which the plaintiff must prove their legal interest.

1. Legal Framework of the Concept of Accessories

Although the concept of accessories is not explicitly defined in the TCC, it is generally understood as elements that are constructed on real estate at a later time and hold economic value. For example, olive trees planted on farmland or a building constructed on a plot of land fall within the scope of accessories. Article 684 of the TCC refers to integral parts of real estate and specifies that elements independent of real estate may be considered under a special status. In this context, the ownership of accessories may belong to a person other than the owner of the real estate.

Article 718 of the TCC expands the scope of real estate ownership to include the areas above and below the land. However, accessories constitute an exception to this general rule. Since accessories are not considered part of the economic or physical integrity of the real estate, they may, in certain circumstances, belong to a person other than the real estate owner. For instance, a building constructed on a plot of land by another individual may be subject to independent ownership based on this principle.

2. Types of Accessories

Accessories are generally classified as follows:

• Buildings and Structures: Residential, commercial, or warehouse buildings constructed on a plot of land fall within the scope of accessories.
• Vegetative Accessories: Fruit trees, vineyards, or gardens planted on a real estate are included in this category.
• Facilities and Infrastructure: Wells, irrigation channels, or power transmission lines located on a real estate may be considered accessories.

3. Determination of Ownership of Accessories Case

The determination of ownership of accessories case is a declaratory lawsuit in Turkish law. Pursuant to Article 106 of the CCP, the plaintiff must have a legal interest in filing this lawsuit. The legal interest in such cases is typically linked to matters such as the partition of real estate, determination of expropriation compensation, or transfer of ownership.

The parties to the determination of ownership of accessories case generally consist of the real estate owner and those claiming ownership of the accessories. The plaintiff is the person or persons claiming that the accessories belong to them, while the defendant is the real estate owner or other relevant parties contesting this claim.

4. Reasons for Filing a Determination of Ownership of Accessories Case

Disputes regarding the ownership of accessories may arise during the partition of jointly owned real estate. For instance, if a building on a plot of land is claimed to belong exclusively to one co-owner, this may lead to the filing of a lawsuit. During expropriation, the value of accessories is calculated as part of the expropriation compensation. However, if the owner of the accessories is not determined, fair compensation cannot be distributed. In such cases, a determination of ownership of accessories case may be filed.

If the ownership of accessories is not clearly specified during the transfer of real estate, disputes may arise between the buyer and the previous owner of the accessories. In such situations, the determination of ownership of accessories may be necessary. Accessories may also be associated with existing easement rights on the real estate. For example, disputes may arise over the ownership of a well or power line.

5. Litigation Process

The determination of ownership of accessories case involves several stages. Addressing procedural deficiencies is crucial to achieving a favorable outcome. The competent court for determination of ownership of accessories cases is the Civil Court of First Instance. The court with jurisdiction is the court where the real estate is located. According to Article 12 of the CCP, the jurisdiction of the court where the real estate is situated is exclusive.

An expert examination is mandatory to determine the physical and economic condition of the accessories. The expert evaluates whether the accessories are independent of the real estate, their construction process, and their value. The court assesses the evidence as a whole when deciding on the ownership of accessories. Once the ownership of accessories is determined, the judgment constitutes a final ruling, and the relevant land registry records can be corrected accordingly.

The Court of Cassation recognizes that accessories may be subject to independent ownership if they are constructed by a person other than the real estate owner. However, for this to be the case, the accessories must have economic value and be considered independently of the real estate. The Court of Cassation also requires that the plaintiff demonstrate a concrete legal interest for declaratory lawsuits to be admissible. If legal interest is absent, the case must be dismissed. Additionally, the Court of Cassation mandates a comprehensive evaluation of expert reports and land registry records alongside the claims of the parties.

6. Conclusion

Determination of ownership of accessories cases constitute a complex area of real estate law. The successful outcome of these cases depends on correctly following legal procedures. The guidance of an expert legal professional is of great importance in resolving disputes among the parties. This type of lawsuit is critical for both practitioners and rights holders, and proper implementation of the law will prevent loss of rights.