(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to accept the entire outstanding amount from the petitioner in Jewels Loan Account Nos. 719385122 and 719670243 in the name of Late P.Govindasamy and consequently to handover the pledged jewels in the said the jewel loan accounts to the petitioner.)

1. Heard Mr.V.J.Arulraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Balaji, learned counsel for Mr.R.Gopinath, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and Mr.Arshad Khan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. The following facts are not in dispute: one, Mr.P.Govindasamy married Mrs.Mary Stella. From the wedlock, there were no issues. Hence, the couple decided to bring up the petitioner and the 3rd respondent as their children. The 3rd respondent was an abandoned child. He was taken care at the Holy Apostles Convent, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

3. Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella approached the said convent and expressed their wish to take over the 3rd respondent as their child. Pursuant to this desire, Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella filed an Original Petition before this Court in O.P.No.82 of 1990. The petition did not seek for orders declaring the aforesaid couple be treated as the adopted parents of the 3rd respondent. It sought for them to be appointed as guardians for the 3rd respondent. This Court was convinced with the reasons given by the couple. An order was passed on 22.03.1990, appointing Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella, as the guardians of the 3rd respondent. Legal custody of the child was also handed over to them.

4. The couple, thereafter, adopted the writ petitioner by way of a deed of adoption dated 24.08.2007. The writ petitioner claims that she is none else than the daughter of a sibling of Mr.P.Govindasamy, one, Mr.Archunan, and his wife Mrs.Thirupurasundari. The adoption deed was registered on the file of the Sub- Registrar at Sirkazhi in Document No.162 of 2007. At the time of adoption, the writ petitioner was aged about 11 years.

5. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent were raised under the care and custody of Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella. The couple got the petitioner and the 3rd respondent married. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent shifted to Dubai for the purpose of earning a livelihood. He is said to be currently living there.

6. The cause of action for the present writ petition arises due to two jewel loans availed by Mr.P.Govindasamy from the Kancheepuram Central Cooperative Bank in Jewel Loan Nos.719385122 and 719670243. The loans were availed on 09.05.2024 and 26.06.2023. The jewels pledged as the security for the loans were 58.700 grams and 32.500 grams respectively. Mr.P.Govindasamy passed away on 21.11.2023. Mrs.Mary Stella predeceased him on 10.02.2012. On the death of Mr.P.Govindasamy, the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were certified to be the legal heirs of the said Mr.P.Govindasamy. A legal heirship certificate was issued on 10.01.2024 by the Tahsildar, Pallavaram Taluk, Chengalpattu District.

7. This certificate has become the bone of contention between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, she, being the adopted daughter of Mr.P.Govidasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella, should have been declared as the sole legal heir of the couple, and that, this Court has not granted the adoption of the 3rd respondent, but had only passed an order of guardianship. Hence, she urges that the certificate of the Tahsildar, Pallavaram, is erroneous. Pleading to this effect, she has preferred an appeal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tambaram, seeking a modification of the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pallavaram, to the effect that she alone is entitled to be declared as the legal heir of the Mr.P.Govindasamy. The said appeal is said to be pending.

8. In the meantime, as the respondents 1 and 2 were having the jewels as security and the loans were not repaid by both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, seeking his permission to settle the dues. On 21.06.2025, the 3rd respondent had sent an email to the 2nd respondent tendering ‘No Objection’ for extinguishment of the jewel loan by the petitioner. Owing to this email, since the respondents 1 and 2 had refused to receive the amounts from the writ petitioner, she filed the present writ petition.

9. When the matter came up for admission, I heard Mr.V.J.Arulraj, and Mr.B.Balaji. I took note of the fact that, in case if the jewel loans are not repaid, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to bring the jewels to auction. In such an eventuality, the jewels belonging to Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella might go into the hands of a third party and the family might loose control over the jewels. As the petitioner was willing to discharge the loans, I recorded the statement of Mr.V.J.Arulraj that the petitioner will pay a sum of Rs.2,12,557/- with respect to Loan Account No.719385122, and a sum of Rs.1,14,554/- with respect to Loan Account No.719670243, within a period of three weeks. As a comprehensive order could not be passed without hearing the 3rd respondent, I directed that notice be served upon him.

10. When the matter was taken up on 08.12.2025, it was reported that the petitioner had not paid a sum of Rs.141/- under Loan Account No.719385122 and a sum of Rs.372/- under Loan Account No.719670243. Mr.V.J.Arulraj stated that the amount, which represents the subsequent interest, would also be exhausted by the next date of hearing. Consequently, I adjourned the matter today.

11. When I took up the matter for final hearing today, Mr.V.J.Arulraj filed a receipt dated 10.12.2025, showing that the entire amount due to the respondents 1 and 2 has been been paid by the petitioner. Mr.V.J.Arulraj further pleads that the 3rd respondent has defaulted to the tune of Rs.1,44,640/- on several housing loans that he has availed from HDFC Bank.

12. Mr.Arshad Khan pleads that the 3rd respondent is the adopted son of Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella, and that a ‘Will’ was executed by the said Mr.P.Govindasamy in favour of both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on 20.05.2023. He also states that before this litigation commenced, both the parties had approached two counsel of this Court, namely, Mr.T.K.S.Gandhi and Mr.Agastin Fernandez, to settle this issue. In terms of the settlement arrived at on 21.06.2025, the jewel loans, as well as the loans over the properties situated at Anna Nagar, Chromepet and Sriperumbudur were to be discharged by both the parties in equal moieties. He states that, contrary to the understanding arrived at between the parties, and in an attempt to disregard the ‘Will’ executed by Mr.P.Govindasamy, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

13. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to receive the outstanding amounts from the petitioner and close the jewel loans set-forth above.

14. In such a proceeding, it will not be appropriate for this Court to go into inter-se disputes between the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent. While the petitioner pleads that the 3rd respondent does not have any legal right over the assets of Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella, the 3rd respondent urges that by virtue of the ‘Will’ executed by Mr.P.Govindasamy on 20.05.2023, he is entitled to have an equal share.

15. In these circumstances, the appropriate remedy for the parties is to approach a jurisdictional Civil Court and workout their rights for declaration or partition. It is needless to add, in such a proceedings, the legal heirship certificate issued by the Revenue Department will not play a major role. It is for the Civil Court, to go into the issue, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence that might be let in by both the parties and arrive at a conclusion, as to the entitlement of each party.

16. By the time the decree of the Civil Court is passed, in case, the loans are not serviced, there is every possibility that the decree, even if obtained either by the petitioner or by the 3rd respondent would be a brutum fulmen, as the properties would have been swallowed by interest and nothing would remain other than an empty paper decree. Any co-owner is entitled to come before this Court and protect a property, in which, he or she has a right. Even as per the ‘Will’ projected by Mr.Arshad Khan, it is not as if the writ petitioner has been disinherited by Mr.P.Govindasamy. The petitioner also has an equal share.

17. Exercising her power as a co-owner, the petitioner has paid the amounts due to the respondents 1 and 2. Once the dues are extinguished, the pledge automatically falls to the ground and the security must be returned to the person who has repaid the dues. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid the amounts due to the Bank, I am of the view that the respondents 1 and 2 should return the jewels, which are covered under the two jewel loans set forth above, back to the writ petitioner.

18. At the same time, I have to balance the right of the 3rd respondent, who claims his right under the ‘Will’. This issue could have been easily resolved had Mr.P.Govindasamy not executed a ‘Will’. Since the 3rd respondent projects a ‘Will’, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

                  (i) The respondents 1 and 2 shall hand over the jewels covered under the two jewel loan accounts, namely, Loan Account No.719385122 and Loan Account No.719670243 to the petitioner after four weeks from the date the order is uploaded on to the website of this court;

                  (ii) It is up to the 3rd respondent to move the jurisdictional Civil Courts taking his claim to the movable and immovable properties left behind by Mr.P.Govindasamy and Mrs.Mary Stella;

                  (iii) The value of the jewels and the loan having been captured in the order, in the event of a decree being passed in favour of the 3rd respondent, he shall be liable to pay the the petitioner pro-rata share of the amount, which the petitioner has discharged the respondents 1 and 2.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.