Court clarified erroneous observations in prior judgments related to property title do not constitute binding findings, emphasizing necessity for factual adjudication in civil courts.

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 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 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 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 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 Respon