- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19484 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR. SIDDARTHA GUNDARPI S/O G H THIPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, GHR COMPOUND, DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANUSHA NANDISH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA BANK LTD BIDADI BRANCH, OFFICE AT NO. 1607/837, NELLIDUDDA TANK ROAD, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. KARNATAKA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE., OFFICE AT NO. 29, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 MARALUR EXTENSION, SADASHIVNAGAR, TUMAKURU 572 105, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 3. MR. SRINIVAS S P S/O SRI. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 24, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, KANAKA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560070. 4. M/S KEMPU AGRO PVT., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE OF BUSINESS AT NO. 24, 2ND MAIN ROAD, KANAKA LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560070, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NITHIN CHANDRA M., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. M.N. UMASHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4 NOTICE IS NOT ORDERED TO R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 BANK TO FORTHWITH RELEASE THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ALSO EXECUTE THE DISCHARGE DEED WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES; DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 BANK TO FORTHWITH RELEASE THE ORIGINAL TITLE DEEDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES AND ALSO EXECUTE THE DISCHARGE DEED WITH RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTIES. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has remitted dues to M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited [the first respondent – the Bank], seeks directions to the Bank and its officer [the second respondent] to release the title deeds and other documents deposited with the Bank as part of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 the loan transaction availed by the third and the fourth respondents. The petitioner's cause for direction, as recorded by this Court on 20.01.2026, and as canvassed by Mrs. Anusha Nandish, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is as follows. [a] The petitioner, acting upon a Tripartite OTS, has not only discharged the loan payable by the third and fourth respondents to the Bank but also made substantial remittances. [b] The Bank has issued an NOC facilitating not just the closure of the transaction between these parties but also the transfer of title to the subject properties. [c] The third and fourth respondents have executed the Sale Deed dated 16.06.2025 in favour of the petitioner along with a contemporaneous Power of Attorney authorizing the petitioner to secure the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 custody of the original Title Deeds and also the Deed of Discharge. This Court has also framed the question for consideration, and such question is whether the Bank, in the peculiarities of the case, is justified in its stand that all the original documents will be returned only to the fourth respondent and the Deed of Discharge with all the documents will also be executed only in favour of the fourth respondent. 2. Mr. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the Bank, inviting this Court’s attention to the Memo filed on 08.07.2025, submits that the documents have not been handed over only because the third and fourth respondents have addressed their Letter dated 30.06.2025 disputing the power of attorney executed in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Shakthi Swaroop, the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents, is heard in the light of the statement made before this Court on the previous hearing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 dates, that these respondents would not have any objection with the Bank offering the Title Deeds to the petitioner or the Bank executing the Deed of Discharge in favour of the petitioner, but this Court must permit the third and fourth respondents to remove their belongings from the subject property with adjudication on the controversy over the standing structures in the subject property. 3. This Court must observe that, because the tripartite OTS is not disputed, the Bank cannot withhold the original documents or refuse to execute the Deed of Discharge. The Bank must not only hand over the original documents but must also execute the Deed of Discharge once it has received the amount due in full and final settlement. On the dispute between the petitioner and the third and fourth respondents, this Court must observe that the dispute is two-folded: [a] the third and fourth respondents’ right to the machinery in the structure - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 and [b] their claim over the standing structures in the subject property. 4. On the first aspect, Ms. Anusha Nandish is categorical that after this Court’s previous hearing date, the third and the fourth respondents have been permitted to shift their machinery, and they are in the process of shifting their machinery. This brings about a closure to the first aspect of the dispute, and insofar as the second aspect, that cannot be a reason for this Court not to direct the Bank to hand over the documents or execute the Deed of Discharge because if there is any dispute over such claim, it must be adjudicated in a properly instituted suit and cannot be a reason to justify the continuance of the custody of the documents with the Bank. As such, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed directing the first and the second respondents [the Bank] to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5423 WP No. 19484 of 2025 hand over the original documents of the subject property to the petitioner and to execute the Deed of Discharge within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within a week from the date of receipt thereof. [B] If there is any dispute between the petitioner and the third/fourth respondents on claims over the subject property, it must be resolved in a properly instituted suit Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr