Judgment : 1. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank to return the original documents and the title deeds relating to the petitioners' properties, bearing Door No.3, Srinivasa Street, Jaganathapuram, Chetpet, Chennai31, deposited with the respondent Bank, by their mother, namely, Packiammal. 2. It has been stated that the first petitioner is the power of attorney agent of the petitioners 2 to 7, as per the registered Deed of Power of Attorney, dated 28.2.2011. 3. It has been further stated that the petitioners are the sons and the daughters of late Doraivelu and late Packiammal. The properties in question had originally belonged to the grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Chinna Irusappan. During his life time, he had settled the said properties, bearing Door No.3, Srinivasa Street, Jaganathapuram, Chetpet, Chennai, to and in favour of his two daughters, namely, Packiammal and Saroja, under a Deed of Settlement, dated 23.7.1962, registered on the file of the office of the registrar of the West Madras, as document No.1941 of 1962. 4. It has been further stated that Chinna Irusappan, the maternal grandfather of the petitioner, had retained life interest in the properties in question. Similarly, a life interest had been vested in his two daughters, in respect of the said properties. After, the effecting of the partition between Packiammal and Saroja, absolute rights in the properties had vested in the petitioners, the legal heirs of Packiammal. In fact, Packiammal and Saroja had no right to encumber or alienate the properties in question, as they had only a life interest in the said properties in question. While so, Packiammal and Saroja stood as guarantors to deposit the title deeds bearing door Nos.2 and 3, Srinivasa Street, Jaganathauram, Chetpet, Chennai, for the loan availed by M/s.M.M. Exports and M/s.Annai Leathers (Exports). 5. It has been further stated that, as the said firms had run into financial losses, the principal borrowers had failed to discharge their loans availed by them from the respondent Bank. Therefore, recovery proceedings had been initiated against them and the properties had been brought for sale, on public auction, on 9.10.2003, based on the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. In such circumstances, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, challenging the auction notice, dated 3.9.2003. Therefore, recovery proceedings had been initiated against them and the properties had been brought for sale, on public auction, on 9.10.2003, based on the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. In such circumstances, a writ petition had been filed before this Court, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, challenging the auction notice, dated 3.9.2003. However, the said writ petition had been dismissed, as infructuous, on 28.8.2009, as the auction date fixed for the sale of the properties in question was 9.10.2003, and as the said date had passed. Even thereafter, the properties had not been brought for sale due to certain legal impediments. In such circumstances, the petitioners had prayed for the return of the documents in question, by the respondent Bank. 6. A counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondent stating that the claims made by the petitioners, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, are incorrect. In fact, Saroja and Packiammal had obtained a patta for their shares in the lands and Saroja had mortgaged her share in the properties with the Egmore Benefit Society Limited, Chennai, and had discharged the same, on 15.2.1994. Thus, it is clear that, both Saroja and Packiammal were absolute owners of their respective shares, as per the Partition Deed, dated 18.4.1974, registered as document No.439 of 1974, on the file of the office of the Sub Registrar, North Madras. It is also noted that both Packiammal and Saroja had succeeded to their father’s estate, as per the Hindu Succession Act, by way of inheritance. Subsequently, Packiammal and Saroja had partitioned the said properties, into two equal shares, by way of a Deed of Partition, dated 18.4.1974. 7. It has also been stated that Packiammal had been allotted 1500 sq.ft. of land and building and she had been in possession and enjoyment of the same, along with their husband and children. The first petitioner is not entitled to file the present writ petition for himself and on behalf of the petitioners 2 to 7, under the Deed of General Power of Attorney. Further, the first petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, challenging the auction sale notice, dated 3.9.2003. The said writ petition had been dismissed, as infructuous, on 28.8.2009. Further, the first petitioner had filed the writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, challenging the auction sale notice, dated 3.9.2003. The said writ petition had been dismissed, as infructuous, on 28.8.2009. The issues raised by the first petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, are the same as the issues raised in the present writ petition. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is barred under the principle of res judicata, as well as Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. It has also been stated that it is for the writ petitioners to establish their rights in the properties in question before an appropriate civil forum. As such, it would not be open to the petitioners to demand the return of the original documents deposited by their mother Packiammal, with the respondent Bank. 9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable. The petitioners are bound to establish their rights in the properties in question before an appropriate civil forum. Thereafter, it may be open to them to demand the return of the original documents relating to the properties in question, which had been mortgaged with the respondent Bank, by Packiammal, the mother of the petitioners. 10. It is also noted that the first petitioner had preferred the writ petition, in W.P.No.28187 of 2003, challenging the auction sale of the notice, dated 3.9.2003, by which, the properties in question had been brought for sale, by public auction. Thereafter, this Court had passed an order, dated 28.8.2009, dismissing the writ petition, as infructuous. The present writ petition had been filed by the first petitioner raising the same issue, once again. 11. The claims made by the petitioners before this Court in the present writ petition have to be substantiated with sufficient evidence, both oral and documentary. While so, it is not open to the petitioners to pray for a direction from this Court, directing the respondent Bank to return the original documents deposited before it, by the mother of the petitioners, especially, after the said properties had been brought for public auction, pursuant to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. While so, it is not open to the petitioners to pray for a direction from this Court, directing the respondent Bank to return the original documents deposited before it, by the mother of the petitioners, especially, after the said properties had been brought for public auction, pursuant to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal concerned. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. However, it goes without saying that it may be open to the petitioners to establish their rights in the properties in question and pursue their legal remedies, before the appropriate forum or authority, in the manner known to law.