Full Judgment Text
2026 INSC 377
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT SLP (C) NOS.19212-19213 OF 2024)
RAVI KALA AND ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S CASABLANCA ESTATE AND
OTHERS
… RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeals assail two orders of the
High Court of Karnataka. The first is the
judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 in CRP
No.131 of 2022 to the extent of certain
erroneous observations contained therein. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
Second is order dated 22.03.2024 by which IA
Date: 2026.04.16
17:47:42 IST
Reason:
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 1 of 25
No.1 of 2024 in CRP No.131 of 2022 seeking
correction of said erroneous observations has
been dismissed.
3. The grievance of the Appellants is that these
erroneous observations have mischaracterized
the claim of the Respondent no.1 herein and
that of the directions issued in a prior
proceeding, which causes prejudice to them in
the pending civil proceedings.
4. The dispute pertains to the title and identity of
a property located near Ulsoor Lake, Bengaluru,
in lieu of which a string of litigations has
occurred. Broadly, three groups of parties are
involved – first, the Muniswamappa group
represented by the Appellants herein, second,
M/s Casablanca estate, (the Respondent no.1
herein) and third, the Respondent nos. 2 to 11
forming part of the Chettiar group. While the
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 2 of 25
Appellants contend that they derive title to the
property, corresponding to old sy nos.88 and
89, and new Sy no.102 and 103, through their
grandfather Muniswamappa who purchased the
property in the year 1901; Respondent nos. 2 to
11, contend that they are owners of the same
property through their grandfather
Muthuswamy Chettiar via an auction sale in
1872. The Respondent no.1, M/S Casablanca
Estate, on the other hand, contends that
property bearing Sy no. 104 has the same PID
Number assigned by the Bangalore Municipal
Corporation as the property bearing sy no. 102,
103, and it derives title to it vide a sale deed
executed in its favour by Respondent no. 16,
Jayamma in the year 2015.
5. The first suit regarding the property bearing Sy
no.85, 86, 102 and 103 with Municipal
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 3 of 25
Corporation No.1/1 came to be filed by one M/S
Sri Venkateswara Group against the Appellants
and their siblings seeking permanent injunction
bearing OS No.16807 of 2004. It was contended
that they had entered into a sale agreement with
Ranganatha Chettiar and his two sons
R.Saradachandan and R. Vijayakumar
(relatives of Respondent nos. 2 to 11 herein)
pursuant to which a sale deed dated 3.10.2003
had been executed in their favor. However, on
18.10.2004 they had noticed a public notice in
the newspaper regarding the intention to
purchase the same property, constraining them
to file the suit. This suit came to be dismissed
on 14.12.2021 as the plaintiffs were unable to
prove their case despite multiple opportunities
having been given. Their contention of being in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 4 of 25
property was not supported by oral and
documentary evidence.
6. In the interregnum, the Appellants’ brother
Ramdev had also approached the High Court of
Karnataka by way of WP No.14279 of 2006
assailing an order of the Joint Commissioner
(East), Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) by
which his name had been substituted with that
of R.Vijaykumar, son of Muthuswamy Chettiar
at their instance, in the Fiscal Register of the
municipal corporation Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike (hereinafter, ‘BMP’) in respect of the
property. One Jayamma, predecessor in title of
Respondent no.1 herein, was also impleaded in
the Writ Petition.
7. Before the High Court, the Appellants’ brother
Ramdev claimed to be owner in possession of
land in old sy no.88 new sy no.102 measuring
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 5 of 25
36 guntas and old sy no.89 new sy no.103
measuring 1 acre 12 guntas. R.Vijaykumar, on
the other hand, claimed title to 32 guntas in old
sy no.85 new sy no.102 and 1 acre 4 guntas in
old sy no.86 new sy no.103. Jayamma
(predecessor in title of Respondent no.1 herein)
claimed land of 1 acre 32 guntas in sy no.104.
8. The BMP asserted there was a factual dispute
over identity and location of the property
belonging to the Appellants’ brother and
R.Vijaykumar. Since the Bangalore City
Corporation was unable to place material over
the issue of katha, the High Court called for
reports regarding the same from the Assistant
Director of Land Records, City Survey-II
(hereinafter, ‘ALDR’).
9. A comprehensive survey of the lands was
carried out and reports were filed by the ALDR
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 6 of 25
in 2011 that disclosed that the property
conveyed in favour of Jayamma fell within Sy
no.104 and it was for her to seek necessary
katha for the property from BMP. However,
there was a dispute regarding the property sy
no.102 and 103. The High Court observed that
the Appellants’ brother Ramdev submitted that
CTS nos.85, 86 relate to property belonging to
him but there is no material to establish that
these CTS nos. correlate to re-survey nos.103,
102 and old sy nos.88 and 89. There was also
no material forthcoming from the respondent
Corporation as to whether municipal nos.1 or
1/1 has any relation to the aforesaid survey or
re-survey nos or CTS nos. Therefore, there was
an identity crisis. The Court would have to
hazard a finding on the location of immovable
property in question as claimed by Ramdev, vis-
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 7 of 25
a-vis the 4th respondent therein (R.Vijaykumar
Chettiar) and the 7th respondent therein,
Jayamma (predecessor in title of Respondent
no.1 herein), coupled with the fact that BMP
was unable to place before the court the record
based on which it identified the location of the
property in question.
10. The High Court therefore partly allowed the WP
No.14279/2006. It was held that the
corporation had exceeded its jurisdiction in
determining dispute over title to the property
and parties were directed to approach the civil
court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication
over right, title, interest and location of the
property. The BMP was directed to delete from
its Fiscal register the names of both Ramdev
and R.Vijaykumar and await final decision of
the civil court. BMP was directed to consider the
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 8 of 25
application of Jayamma in respect of Sy no.104.
This order dated 20.2.2015 directing deletion of
the names from the Fiscal register was
challenged by both Ramdev and Vijaykumar in
different writ appeals, both of which were
dismissed.
11. Thereafter, Respondent no.2 herein, filed a civil
suit bearing OS No. 437/2020 seeking ½ share
in the property sy nos.102 measuring 32 guntas
and sy no.103 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas by
way of partition and declaration of certain
agreements as void against the other Chettiars,
the Muthuswamys including the Appellants
herein, the Respondent no.1 herein and its
predecessor in title Jayamma. It was alleged
that on 28.12.2019, the Appellants herein and
their siblings, Respondent no.1 herein, and
Jayamma, along with their men, had attempted
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 9 of 25
to put up a compound and sheds over the
schedule properties and they had left the spot
proclaiming that they had documents and
records in their names and would come again.
12. On 12.7.2021, the Respondent no.1 herein, filed
IA No.3 in OS No.437/2020 under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of this
plaint. It was claimed that Respondent no.1
herein (Defendant no.14 therein) was in
possession and ownership of Municipal
Corporation No.1, PID No.81-86-1 Re-sy
no.104, old sy no.90, Halasuru village, Civil and
Military Station of 83,717 sq ft. The revenue
authorities had mutated their name in the
revenue records and it had paid up to date taxes
to the revenue authorities. This property was
distinct and different from the suit schedule
property sy no.102,103 PID No.81-86-1 and so
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 10 of 25
they were wrongly arrayed as defendant to the
suit. Moreover, the High Court in the earlier
proceedings in WP No.14279/2006 had directed
the parties to go before the competent civil court
for tracing the title, location and identity of the
property. Therefore, the suit seeking partition of
an unidentified and untraceable property was
premature.
13. The City Civil Court dismissed this application
filed by the Respondent no.1 in OS
No.437/2020. It was held that it was clear from
the pleadings that cause of action existed as to
plaintiffs as they were claiming share in the
scheduled property being in joint possession of
it and did not have knowledge of the documents
of defendants. Further, whether these
documents had been executed by fraud was a
matter of trial.
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 11 of 25
14. Aggrieved, the Respondent no.1 approached the
High Court by way of Civil Revision Petition
bearing CRP No. 131/2022. It was again
pleaded that Respondent no.1 had no relation
to the suit property being sy no.102 and 103
and the property lawfully owned and possessed
by it was sy no.104 PID no.81-86-1. It was
contended that they had been arrayed as
defendants mischievously in order to stake a
claim over their property. The vendor of
Defendant no.14 (Respondent no.1 herein) had
made an application to BBMP for effecting
khatha in her name in respect of sy no.104.
Thereafter, khatha in respect of the sy no.104
had been effected in the name of the vendor of
Defendant no. 14 after due enquiry and
proceeding. Subsequently, after Defendant
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 12 of 25
no.14 acquired khatha, it was re-mutated in its
name.
15. The High Court, by way of the first impugned
order allowed the said revision petition on the
ground that the cause of action seemed to be
prima facie erroneous as the GPA that had been
executed by the original plaintiffs for instituting
the suit pre-dated the purported cause of
action.
16. In the course of its judgment, the High Court
made certain observations that the Appellants
contend are materially erroneous. In paragraph
6 of the judgment, the High Court observed that
Defendant No. 14 (Respondent No. 1) had
contended that it is the owner of the suit
schedule property and had filed the Order VII
Rule 11 application on the ground that the suit
had been filed on false and frivolous grounds.
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 13 of 25
This, the Appellants submit, is a direct
inversion of what Respondent No. 1 had actually
contended: Respondent No. 1 had consistently
maintained that it owned Sy. No. 104, which
was a different property from the suit schedule
property bearing Sy. Nos. 102 and 103, and that
it had been wrongly impleaded precisely
because it had no claim over the suit schedule
property.
17. Furthermore, in paragraph 13 of the judgment,
the High Court recorded that the order dated
20.02.2015 passed by the High Court in W.P.
No. 14279 of 2006 “recognises ownership of one
Jayamma, predecessor in title of Defendant No.
14, and direction is issued to BBMP to mutate
her name as owner of the schedule property and
remove the name of Vijaykumar.” The
Appellants submit that this characterisation is
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 14 of 25
factually and legally incorrect. The order of
20.02.2015 did not recognise Jayamma’s
ownership of the suit schedule property; on the
contrary, it expressly refrained from making any
determination of title and directed all parties to
approach the civil court. The direction to BBMP
regarding Jayamma was limited to requiring
BBMP to consider her separate application in
respect of her distinct property bearing Sy. No.
104, not to mutate her name as owner of the
suit schedule property bearing Sy. Nos. 102 and
103.
18. Apprehensive that such erroneous observations
may by used by the Respondent no. 1 to stake
claim to their property, particularly in light of
the fact that the Appellants herein had filed a
suit bearing OS No.26121 of 2022 against the
respondent no.1 seeking injunction, the
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 15 of 25
Appellants herein sought corrections with
respect to the order dt.23.2.2024 and filed an
application under section 152 of the CPC. It
was prayed that ‘suit schedule property’ may be
corrected to ‘sy no.104’ in paragraphs 6,13,14
and 18 of the order. This application, however,
came to be dismissed by way of the second
impugned order dated 22.03.2024 noting that
no justifiable grounds were made out as to why
correction is to be made.
19. It is submitted that the Appellants’
apprehension that the erroneous observations
in the impugned judgment would be misused
has since materialised as Respondent No. 1 has
filed a memo dated 02.04.2024 in O.S. No.
26121 of 2022 placing reliance on the impugned
judgment and contending that the suit schedule
properties in both cases are one and the same.
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 16 of 25
20. The Appellants do not challenge the ultimate
outcome of C.R.P. No. 131 of 2022, namely the
rejection of the plaint in O.S. No. 437 of 2020.
The limited relief sought is the deletion or
correction of the erroneous observations in
paragraphs 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the impugned
judgment, which mischaracterise Respondent
No. 1’s claim and the effect of the High Court
order dated 20.02.2015.
21. It is submitted that the High Court’s
observations in paragraph 13 regarding the
order dated 20.02.2015 by the High Court in a
previous proceeding being WP No.14279/2006
are diametrically opposed to the actual contents
of the said order. While the High Court had held
that the issues of title ought to be contested in
a suit and it was directed that no name be
shown against the suit property in the revenue
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 17 of 25
records until determination of ownership, the
High Court in the impugned order noted that
the order dated 20.02.2015 recognized the
ownership of Jayamma and issued direction to
BBMP to mutate her name as owner of the
schedule property and remove the name of
Vijaykumar.
22. It is submitted that it is clear that the
Respondent no.1 also understood the holding of
the order dated 20.02.2015 as a mere relegation
to the Civil Court for adjudication as is evident
from averments made in the Order VII Rule 11
application filed by the said respondent in OS
No.437/2020. The High Court erred in failing to
consider that it was the case of Respondent No.
1 that it is the owner of Re Sy. No. 104, and that
it did not claim any right over the property
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 18 of 25
bearing Re Sy. No. 102 and 103 which was the
Suit Schedule Property.
23. It is submitted that the Respondent no.1
consistently took the stand the properties were
distinct. In the Order VII Rule 11 application
filed by it, it was specifically stated that the Suit
Schedule Property and sy no.104 were two
different and distinct properties. This
submission of the two properties being distinct
has also been recorded by the Trial Court. Even
before the High Court, the Respondent denied
any relation to the suit property.
24. In response, the Learned Counsel for the
Respondent no.1 submits that in O.S. No.
437/2020, the plaintiffs therein (Respondent
Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 herein) claimed rights over Re
Sy. Nos. 102 and 103, yet in the schedule to the
plaint, they used the PID No. 81-86-1, which is
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 19 of 25
exclusively assigned to Sy. No. 104 belonging to
the answering Respondent. This was a
deliberate drafting device intended to indirectly
target Respondent No. 1’s property. The High
Court, in the first Impugned Judgment, after
examining the entire plaint, rightly held that the
suit schedule property corresponds to the
property of Respondent No. 1. The present SLP
is a tactical manoeuvre to obtain observations
from this Court that may influence the outcome
of the pending CRP and OS No.26121 of 2022.
25. Having heard the learned counsels and on
perusal of the materials on record, it is clear
that the stand of the Respondent no.1 herein,
as well as that of its predecessor Jayamma, was
never that the property bearing sy no.102 and
103 was same as sy no.104. The High Court by
way of its first impugned order has erred in
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 20 of 25
recording the stand of Respondent no.1 and the
directions issued in the previous High Court
order dated. 20.02.2015 in WP No.14279 of
2006.
26. This is evident from the pleadings made by the
Respondent no.1 and its predecessor, as well as
the orders of the Court in the earlier
proceedings. The High Court in its order dated
20.02.2015 in WP No.14279/2006 had
recorded that Jayamma claimed land
measuring 1 Acre 32 guntas in Sy no. 104. The
Commissioner’s report had also disclosed that
the property conveyed in favor of Jayamma fell
within sy no.104 and it was for her to seek
necessary katha for the property from BMP. The
Writ petition had been disposed of with
directions to BMP to consider the application of
Jayamma for issuance of katha in respect of sy
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 21 of 25
no.104. That the same was applied for and
obtained after due enquiry and procedure is
reflected in the plaint by the Respondent no.1
himself in CRP No.131 of 2022. Even in the
Order VII Rule 11 application filed by
Respondent no.1 in OS No.437 of 2020, the
stand was that it had been wrongly arrayed as
defendant as the property owned and possessed
by it was completely distinct and different. It
was even specifically asserted that it was in no
way connected or related to the suit schedule
property in the said suit.
27. Therefore, the observations of the High Court in
the first impugned order regarding the order
dated 20.02.2015 and the claim of Respondent
no.1 to the suit property are prima facie
erroneous as they assume that the properties
are one and the same, despite there having been
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 22 of 25
no adjudication on the same. These
observations are contrary to the material on
record and the consistent pleadings as also the
submissions of the parties.
28. However, the contention of the Respondent no.1
regarding sy no.104 having the same PID No. as
that of sy no.102,103, namely PID No. 81-86-1
causes apprehension of one’s property being
claimed as the others.
29. It has come on record that on 12.09.2024,
Respondent No. 1 filed an Order VII Rule 11
application in O.S. No. 26121 of 2022 that has
been filed by the Appellants, which was rejected
by the Trial Court. This order is presently
challenged by Respondent No. 1 in C.R.P. No.
752 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka.
By order dated 06.03.2025, the High Court in
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 23 of 25
those proceedings has stayed the proceedings in
O.S. No. 26121 of 2022.
30. In view of the foregoing, while we do not
consider it necessary to interfere with the
operative order of the High Court rejecting the
plaint in O.S. No. 437 of 2020, we are of the view
that the observations in paragraphs 6,13, 14
and 18 of the impugned judgment, as they
stand, do not accurately reflect either the
pleaded position of Respondent No. 1 or the
directions contained in the order dated
20.02.2015 in W.P. No. 14279 of 2006. We
accordingly clarify that the said observations
shall not be construed as a finding on the title,
identity, or location of the suit schedule
property. The observations by the High Court in
the first impugned order are to not be relied
upon by the parties in any of the proceedings in
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 24 of 25
order to assert their claims. Needless to say, the
disputes regarding the concerned property is to
be decided by the competent court based on the
pleadings and the evidence led by the parties.
31. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
32. There shall be no order as to costs.
33. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2026.
C.A. @ SLP(C) NOS.19212-19213/2024 Page 25 of 25