Ravi Kala vs M/S. Casablanca Estate

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)

JUDGMENT

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 Date: 2026.04.16 Second is order dated 22.03.2024 by which IA 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