SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 408

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Ravi Kala – Appellant
Versus
Casablanca Estate – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ninad Laud, Adv. Mr. Guruprasad Naik, Adv. Mr. Labeeb Faeeq, Adv. Mr. Umang Motiyani, Adv. Mr. Nandini Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Dcosta Ivo Manuel Simon, AOR
For the Respondent(s): M/S. Edictum Law & Co., AOR Mr. Srijan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Garg, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv. Ms. Nitya Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Rishi Chouksey, Adv. Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Mr. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ranu Purohit, AOR Mr. Yashas Rk, Adv. Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Rijuk Sarkar, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!)

What is the correct approach to rectify erroneous observations in High Court judgments when they relate to property title and location?

What is the role of civil courts in resolving disputes over property identity, title, and location where prior observations may mischaracterize claims?

What are the limits of binding effect of High Court observations on title, and how should parties proceed to resolve title disputes based on pleadings and evidence?


Table of Content
1. challenge to high court's erroneous observations. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. dispute over property title and identity. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. civil suits concerning property claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. high court's role in civil proceedings. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. mischaracterization of claims in proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 20 , 21)
6. appellants seek correction of judgments. (Para 18 , 19)
7. respondent’s stand on distinct properties. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
8. prima facie errors in high court observations. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
9. implications of similar pid numbers. (Para 28 , 29)
10. clarification on high court observations. (Para 30)
11. final judgment on appeals. (Para 31)
12. no cost order in concluding judgment. (Para 32 , 33)

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 Second is order dated 22.03.2024 by which IA No.1 of 2024 in CRP No.131 of 2022 seeking correction of said erroneous observations has been dismissed.

3. The grievance of the Appell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top