ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31010/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 01-08-2025 in MFA No. 5551/2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]

M.M. PRASANNA KUMAR Petitioner(s)

VERSUS D. VINOD SIVAPPA Respondent(s)

[MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED]

Date : 24-02-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN For Petitioner(s) Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv.

Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv.

Mr. Angad Pahal, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv.

Ms. Ishita Khurana, Adv.

Mr. Aviral Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. Santosh Kumar Prasad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Mr. Manu Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Shristi Widge, Adv.

Ms. Kopal Tewary, Adv.

Ms. Aadya Gowda, Adv.

Mr. Palash Maheshwari, Adv.

Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma, Adv.

Signature Not Verified babita pandey Date: 2026.02.24 Reason:

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following

O R D E R

Having heard the learned senior counsel, appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that interference is not called for insofar as denial of an interim injunction to the plaintiff/

petitioner, M. M. Prasanna Kumar, is concerned.

We find that apart from the document, titled ‘Agreement to Sell’ dated 17.12.2002, another registered document, titled ‘Memorandum of Charge’ was also executed on the very same day. Both these documents recorded that the title deeds of the suit schedule property were deposited with the plaintiff/petitioner.

That being so, the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner in the suit that the defendant should be restrained from alienating, transferring or creating any third party rights in respect of the suit schedule property was unnecessary as a charge stood created in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff under the aforestated documents and the deposit of title deeds. The doctrine of lis pendens would also apply.

While making this position clear, we may also add that the observations made by the trial court as well as the High Court, in the orders presently under challenge before this Court, shall have no binding effect or influence on the trial court when the matter is taken up for adjudication on the strength of the documentary and oral evidence adduced and in accordance with law.

We may also make it clear that our observations in this order are also for the purpose of disposal of this case and shall not be construed to be binding findings on merit insofar as the nature and import of the transaction and the documents are concerned.

The trial court may expedite the suit to the extent possible.

The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(BABITA PANDEY) (PREETI SAXENA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)