Valli vs The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Sarugani Branch, Sivagangai District

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hemant Chandangoudar, J
Valli – Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Sarugani Branch, Sivagangai District – Respondent
Writ Petition

Important Points

Bank must release pledged jewels post-loan repayment upon public notice if no objections from legal heirs.

Subject

Civil - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Constitution of India: S.226

Headnote

Article 226 of the Constitution of India enables issuance of writ of mandamus. Petitioner sought release of jewels pledged by deceased husband as loan security, after loan closure, but bank refused without consent of all legal heirs. Court noted application submitted on 19.05.2022 and bank's requirement for heirs' consent. Main issue: Whether bank can withhold pledged jewels post-loan repayment absent all heirs' consent. Court observed deceased left wife, two sons, three daughters; one daughter untraceable, and directed public notice for objections to facilitate release. Writ petition disposed directing petitioner to publish public notice in newspaper for 7 days; if no objections, bank to release jewels upon indemnity bond and formalities.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For the Respondents: Mr.C.Karthik, Mrs.PB.Ahamed Yasmin Parvin

Table of Content
1. petition seeks mandamus for release of pledged jewels. (Para 1 , 2)
2. bank requires all heirs' consent due to missing daughter. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. public notice and indemnity enable jewel release if unopposed. (Para 6 , 7)

O R D E R

The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to the respondent bank to release the jewels pledged by the deceased husband.

2. The petitioner in this regard had submitted an application dated

19.05.2022 and the petitioner's grievance is that despite the application the respondent bank has not considered the application of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner's deceased husband namely Dharmalingam had obtained loan and pledged jewels as security towards repayment of loan during his lifetime. He closed the loan account. However, the respondent bank did not return the jewels.

4. Mr.C.Karthik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the deceased left behind his wife/ petitioner herein, two sons and three daughters as his legal heirs and if all the legal heirs gives consent of releasing the pledged jewels, the respondent bank will release the pledged jewels in favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the daughter namely Ramalakshmi has eloped and her whereabouts is not known.

6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to take out a public notice in the name of the respondent bank in a daily local newspaper having vide circulation inviting objections from any person for releasing the pledged jewels in favour of the petitioner by giving 7 days time for objections, if any.

7. If no objections are received from any person including Ramalakshmi, the respondent Bank shall release the pledged jewels of the petitioner subject to the petitioner executing an indemnity bond and the petitioner satisfying other formalities.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.