Disputed ownership claims over bank locker contents require civil suit adjudication rather than writ jurisdiction.

The Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 (R-2) were previously married, with their marriage dissolved by a divorce decree on October 25, 2013

During their marriage, they jointly operated Locker No. 213 at Canara Bank (R-1)

Following the divorce and subsequent disputes, locker maintenance fees remained unpaid and the hire contract was not renewed, prompting the Bank to break open the locker, inventory the contents, and take them into custody

On April 25, 2024, the High Court directed the Bank to release the articles to the Petitioner

R-2 filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking a recall of that order, asserting a claim of ownership over the articles

Although the matter was referred to mediation to settle the jewellery distribution, the mediation report dated April 9, 2026, indicated that no settlement was reached

1. Whether the court, in a writ proceeding, can adjudicate disputed claims of ownership over articles recovered from a joint bank locker.

2. Whether the earlier order directing the release of articles to the Petitioner should be modified in light of the failure of mediation and the existence of contradictory ownership claims.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to modify its previous order in the interest of justice

It applied the established legal principle that High Courts, while exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot decide or enter into disputed questions of fact regarding the ownership of property

The court clarified that such substantive disputes must be resolved through appropriate proceedings in a Civil Court

The court observed that while it had initially ordered the release of the articles to the Petitioner, it had specifically noted in its order dated April 25, 2024, that the merits of ownership were not being adjudicated

Given that both parties have remarried and maintain contradictory claims over different items of jewellery, the court determined that the "fitness of things" required the Bank to retain custody until an amicable settlement or a legal determination was reached

Since mediation failed, the court reasoned that it was incompetent to resolve the factual dispute over ownership within the limited scope of writ proceedings

Consequently, the court found it necessary to modify the prior direction to prevent the delivery of disputed property to one party while ownership remains contested

The parties were granted liberty to file appropriate civil proceedings to determine their respective claims

R-2 was directed to continue making requisite payments to the Bank for the custody of the articles, with the final sharing of such payments to be determined in the subsequent civil proceedings

The application was disposed of with these directions