(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.)

1. 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 application.

5. It is the plea of Ms.T.P.Savitha that, the jewels pledged with the third respondent are the ancestral properties of Murugananda Reddy Samy, and not the stridhana property of the writ petitioner. According to her, the jewels cannot be released exclusively in favour of the writ petitioner, as she has a share in the same. She further points out that the jewels had been pledged by Murugananda Reddy Samy and not by M/s.Sridevi in her personal capacity. She further points out that as she has a share in the property, she has moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, invoking Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act. On these plea, she seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and gone through the records.

7. It is not in dispute that the properties were pledged to the third respondent by Murugananda Reddy Samy. Murugananda Reddy Samy died on 09.12.2023. His parents have predeceased him. Apart from the writ petitioner and the fourth respondent, Murugananda Reddy Samy has left behind a son by name Kothandaraman. Whether the properties are ancestral properties of Murugananda Reddy Samy or whether they are the exclusive properties of the writ petitioner or the fourth respondent are matters, which cannot be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The power of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is circumscribed by Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies, Act, 1983. Inter se dispute between the legal heirs of a former member is not one amongst those clauses. The proper remedy, if at all, for any of the parties claiming a stake over the jewels, is to approach the jurisdictional Civil Court and file a suit. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies is incompetent to grant a decree for partition and separate possession.

8. The loans that have been taken by the deceased Murugananda Reddy Samy had been discharged by the writ petitioner. Once the pledge is discharged, the third respondent has no right to retain the security. The plea of Mr.Umakanth that the third respondent retained the jewels on the request of the other legal heirs of the deceased Murugananda Reddy Samy does not hold water. The third respondent is not a Civil Court to decide the respective rights of parties.

9. In the light of the above discussion, this writ petition is ordered. The third respondent shall return the jewels to the petitioner on 05.01.2026. The direction is deferred till 12.01.2026 in order to enable Ms.Sridurga to move the jurisdictional Civil Court in the meantime and obtain interim orders. No costs.