HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 19686 of 2009 DATED: 16.09.2009 Between: C.Kodanda Ramaiah And two others ..... PETITIONERs AND The Branch Manager, Tirupathi Branch, Bank of Baroda And another .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioners claim to be the sons of Late Sriramulu, who, according to the petitioners, deposited some gold ornaments in the 1st respondent-Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, worth Rs.3,00,000/-. They state that the 2nd respondent is also their brother. While so, the father of the petitioners died on 23.03.2004, and after his demise, the petitioners state that they approached the 1st respondent, produced the death certificate of their father and requested him to give back their shares of the articles said to have been deposited by their father, and the 1st respondent stated that unless and until the petitioners and the 2nd respondent put their signatures in the relevant documents in the Bank, their share cannot be given proportionately. When the same was informed to the 2nd respondent, he intentionally refused to put his signature in the relevant documents for receiving their shares equally. Then, the petitioners made representation dated 04.07.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting him to give their share as the 2nd respondent is not willing to come forward to put his signature in the bank to take his share of the articles. Now, it is their grievance that the 1st respondent is neither considering their representation nor releasing the articles said to have been deposited by their father, on the ground that all the legal heirs are not agreeing to take the articles. Hence, they filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. A perusal of the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would reveal that there are certain disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to sharing of the properties of their father, and this is further evident from the fact that respondent No.2 is said to be not cooperating with the petitioners in getting the articles deposited in the bank by their father, released, and sharing among themselves. Unless and until the said disputes are resolved, the petitioners are not entitled to seek their share of the articles, which are said to have been deposited by their father in respondent No.1-Bank. Since the resolving of the disputes raised in this writ petition are disputes questions of fact, which require leading of evidence, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not decide the same. Hence, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the competent civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 16th September, 2009 bcj