IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

Mrs.M.Sridevi ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Manager, The Agriculture Co-operative Bank Ltd.,

Poonamalle High Road, Dasspuram, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

2. The Branch Manger, The Agriculture Co-operative Bank Vellore,

No.3, Anna Salai, Sankarapalaiyam, Vellore – 632 001.

3. The Branch Manager, The Agriculture Co-operative Society,

C-2539 Bommikuppam,

Agriculture Co-operative Society, Bommikuppam Post,

Thirupatturee Taluk & District – 635 653.

4. M.Sridurga ... Respondents

[R4 impleaded vide order dated 10.12.2025 made in

WMP No.51740 of 2025 in WP No.40744 of 2025]

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner representation dated 14.01.2025, for releasing of the petitioner's three pattai chain weighing about 102.900 grams, and pass such order or

further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nithyanandam

For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Umakanth, Government Advocate For R4 : Ms.T.P.Savitha

O R D E R

With the consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal.

2. The petitioner is the wife of one Murugananda Reddy Samy. The offspring of Murugananda Reddy Samy and the writ petitioner is the fourth respondent, Ms.M.Sridurga.

3. The petitioner states that her jewels were pledged with the third respondent for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. The value of the jewels is Rs.5,14,500/-. Murugananda Reddy Samy passed away on 09.12.2023. The petitioner approached the third respondent to release her jewels. The third respondent insisted that the petitioner has to clear the loan and only thereafter, the jewels would be returned. The petitioner also paid the amounts due to the third respondent and obtained a receipt. Despite the payment, the third respondent did not release the jewels. He insisted the petitioner has to obtain a 'No Objection' certificate from the surviving legal heirs. She gave a representation to respondents 1 to 3 and since it was not considered, she is before this court.

4. On 29.10.2025, I heard Mr.V.Nithyanandam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.V.Umakanth, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, I passed the following order on 29.10.2025:-

“The petitioner had pledged her jewels with the 3rd respondent. On the security of the jewels, she received a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- from the 3rd respondent bank. In due discharge of her liability, she repaid the sums due to the 3rd respondent. In the meantime, her husband, one Muruganda Reddy Samy passed away. When the petitioner sought the return of her jewels, the 3rd respondent seems to have taken a stand that since Muruganda Reddy Samy has left behind other legal heirs, they have to give no objection for the return of the jewels to the writ petitioner.

2. The 3rd respondent does not hold a brief for the legal heirs. The relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was that of a creditor and debtor. Once the petitioner has repaid all the amounts due to the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent is not entitled to retain even a single ounce of her jewellery. The payment discharges her liability with the 3rd respondent, and once the liability is discharged, the security becomes free from any encumbrance. If the children of the petitioner/legal heirs of the late Muruganda Reddy Samy have any grievance, it is for them to file a suit and seek for appropriate orders. When a Civil Court is functioning vibrantly in Tirupatthur, the assistance of the 3rd respondent in addition to the Civil Court is totally unwarranted.

3. Mr.V.Umakanth, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondents. He shall report to this Court as to when the petitioner's jewels will be returned.

List the matter on 31.10.2025.”

In the meantime, the fourth respondent had instructed Ms.T.P.Savitha and she had filed the impleading