Disputed factual claims regarding fixed deposit entitlements require resolution through civil court, as Article 226 relief is not applicable. Claims may be additionally time-barred.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

Respondents 1 and 2 in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 filed W.A.No.287 of 2025 and the respondents in W.P.(C)No. 1304 of 2019 filed W.A.No.352 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions. Since the point to be decided in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment in their status as they were in the writ petitions, unless otherwise stated.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019 is the son of the 2^nd petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019. The 1^st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19940 of 2019 is the daughter of the 2^nd petitioner therein. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019, on 22.12.1995 while he was a minor, his father had deposited an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs in a fixed deposit for a period of 90 days, in the name of the petitioner in the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank, Guruvayoor branch, which was later merged with the Punjab National Bank. The deposit was made initially for a period of 90 days, which was renewed for a further period of 106 days and then again for 170 days. The father of the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 fixed deposit receipt dated 21.03.1996, which contains the periodical renewal particulars on its reverse side, the endorsement of which is separately marked as Ext.P1(a) in the writ petition. Similarly, the father of the petitioner made another fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner for a sum of Rupees Three Lakhs on 22.12.1995 itself, for which Exts.P2 fixed deposit receipt was issued. The endorsement on its reverse side showing the renewal particulars is Ext.P2(a). The fixed deposits were not renewed after 23.09.1996, since the signatures of the father of the petitioner were obtained by the bank officials for automatic renewal. On attaining majority, the petitioner approached the bank on 07.01.2019 with the original fixed deposit receipts for releasing the maturity amount. However, the bank refused to release the amount, citing the unavailability of records. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation marked as Ext.P3 in the writ petition on 07.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the non-releasing of the amount, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No. 1304 of 2019 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release forthwith the amount covered by Exts.P1 and P2 fixed deposit receipts with interest.

2.1. On behalf of the respondents in W.P.(C)No.1304 of 2019, a statement dated 26.06.2019 was filed in that writ petition.Paragraphs 1 to 4 of that statement read thus:

“1. As per the directions of this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 03.04.2019 the Bank was directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law to release the amount if the petitioner is entitled to get the same as of right without any further delay.

2. Immediately after the interim order, Guruvayoor branch in which the fixed deposits were made in the name of the petitioner contacted the data centre of the bank. Erstwhile Nedungadi bank was taken over by the Punjab National Bank in the year 2003. At the time of take over, all the assets and liabilities of the bank were verified and asset liability schedule was prepared. All the fixed deposits made by various customers of erstwhile Nedungadi bank and pending as on the date of takeover were also listed.

3. In the instant case, the petitioner mentions that his father had deposited the amounts in the name of the petitioner on 22.12.1995 and the same had matured on 21.3.1996. He further says that the fixed deposits were renewed for a period of 106 days renewable on 04.07.1996 and that the same was renewed for another 170 days thereafter. Thus, the petitioner's fixed deposits might have matured as early as in Ju