W.P.No.32586 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.02.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.32586 of 2023 MEENAKSHI ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GANDHIPET, TIRUPATTUR (1884), 72/14, PALANISAMY ROAD, GANDHIPET, TIRUPATTUR, TIRUPATTUR DISTRICT – 635 601. 2. LAKSHMI ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the issue of communication dated 19.10.2023 by the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Gandhipet, Tirupattur (1884) at 72/14, Palanisamy road, Gandhipet, Tirupattur, Tirupattur District 635 601, the first respondent herein in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Ashok Kumar For R1 : Mr.Jayaganga Kumaresan For R2 : Mr.U.Meharunisha 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32586 of 2023 ORDER The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2023. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. In the representation, the petitioner prayed for the handing over of the jewels that were pledged. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the jewels were originally pledged by her father namely Annamalai. However, the jewels belong to her. As a matter of fact, she made arrangements and paid the entire amount for the redemption of the jewels. Therefore, having made the payment and being the rightful owner of the jewels, the first respondent ought to have handed over the jewels only to her. Further, as per the legal heirship certificate, Annamalai died leaving behind six legal heirs. The majority of the legal heirs have also given their no objection, except for the second respondent in the writ petition. Therefore, merely based on the untenable claim made by the second respondent, Lakshmi, the first respondent ought not to have refused the relief to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner approached this 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32586 of 2023 Court earlier through writ petition No.17269 of 2023 and by an order dated 09.06.2023, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the representation and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Mr.D.Ashok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that, in this case, the second respondent is objecting just for the sake of objection. On her mere objection, the petitioner cannot be divested of her jewels. The first respondent ought to have released the jewels in favour of the petitioner, especially when all the other legal heirs have also given their no objection. 4. Per contra, Mr.Jayaganga Kumaresan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that the jewels were pledged in the name of Annamalai and therefore, it should be considered as belonging to Annamalai. When the bank was directed to dispose of the representation, it issued notice to all the legal heirs, but not all the legal heirs consented to release the jewels in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, when some of the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32586 of 2023 legal heirs are objecting, the jewels cannot be released in favour of the petitioner. 5.Mrs.U.Meharunisha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, relying on her counter, submits that the second respondents specifically denies the facts that the jewels belong to the petitioner and that she paid the loan amount due, to the bank to redeem the jewels. 6. When there is a dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, who is one of the legal heir, the first respondent cannot release the jewels unless all the legal heirs agree, one way or another. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Further, this Court under Article 226 cannot decide the contested issue between the petitioner and the second respondent regarding the ownership of the jewels or whether said Annamalai pledged the jewels of the petitioner or it belongs to the common family. These are all questions that has to be gone into by the Civil Court. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32586 of 2023 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate Civil Court and if such suit is filed, the Civil Court is requested to consider the issue as expeditiously as possible, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. 13.02.2025 Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsl To THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, GANDHIPET, TIRUPATTUR (1884), 72/14, PALANISAMY ROAD, GANDHIPET, TIRUPATTUR, TIRUPATTUR DISTRICT – 635 601. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.32586 of 2023 D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. nsl W.P.No.32586 of 2023 13.02.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis