Cpc Main Project (1)

8/18/2019 Cpc Main Project (1)

1/31

PROJECT OF

CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE

INTER PLEADER SUIT

SUBMITTED BY –AJITABH

ROLL NO -906

SUBMITTED TO –Dr. B.R.N SHARMA

1 | P a g e


2/31

FACULTY FOR C.P.C

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA

ACKNOWLEDEMENT

I, AJITABH studying in the 3rd year of Chanakaya National La

!ni"ersity, ould like to state that in the #o$%letion of the %ro&e#t

re%ort of C'P'C on the to%i# (INT)* PL)A+)* !IT'- I ha"e

re#ei"ed a lot of en#ourage$ent and su%%ort fro$ "arious

.uarters hi#h need s%e#ial attention'

I ould /rst and fore$ost like to thank and %resent $y sin#ere

gratitude to $y tea#her, +r' B'*'N HA*0A I* ho a#ted as a

guiding light for $e and hel%ed $e ith the #o$%letion on this

%ro&e#t re%ort' I ould also like to thank $y friends for their #oo%eration and su%%ort hi#h hel%ed $e in su##essfully

#o$%leting $y %ro&e#t'

2 | P a g e


3/31

RESEARCH METHODOLOY

A!"# $%& O'()*+!)#

This resear#h %a%er looks at $eaning and legal %ro"ision under #%# regading inter

%leadr suit'

S*/) $%& L!"!+$+!%#

+ue to s%a#e #onstraints, the %a%er is li$ited to a rief dis#ussion of the %oints set

ao"e'

R)#)$r* 12)#+!%#

4hat is inter%leader suit5

Ho it is di6er fro$ the ordinary suit5

HYPOTHESIS

The resear#her hy%otheses that the inter%leader suit is not si$ilar to the ordinary

suit'

M)+& 3 Wr!+!%4

An ar#hi"al $ethod of riting has een folloed in the %a%er' Analysis ased on the

%resented data has een atte$%ted'

S2r*)# 3 D$+$

e#ondary sour#es of data ha"e een used hile resear#hing for the %a%er'

3 | P a g e


4/31

S+5) 3 C!+$+!%

A unifor$ style of #itation has een folloed throughout the %a%er'

CHAPTERISATION

INTRODUCTION7. ENERAL CONCEPT OF SUIT8. WHERE INTERPLEADER SUIT MAY BE

INSTITUTED. PLAINT IN THE INTERPLEADER SUIT:. PAYMENT OF THIN CLAIMED IN THE COURT;. PROCEDURE WHERE DEFENDANT IS

SUIN PLAINTIFF6. PROCEDURE AT FIRST HEARIN


5/31

INTRODUCTION

An interpleader suit is one in which the real dispute is between the defendants only and the

defendants interplead, that is to say plead against each other instead of pleading against the

plaintiff as in ordinary suit. In every interpleader suit, there must be some debt or sum of money

or other property in dispute between the defendants only, and the plaintiffs must be a person who

claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to

such of the defendants as may be declared by the court to be entitled to it.

Thus suppose, certain property is claimed by A as well as by B, and X is in possession of that

property and claims no interest in the property himself and is ready and willing to deliver it tosuch party as may be declared by the court to be the rightful owner of it, X as plaintiff may

institute an interpleader suit against A and B as defendants. In such a case, X will , as rule, be

dismissed from the suit at the first hearing after his costs are provided for , and A and B will be

left to interplead and to fight the matter out between themselves as if one of them was plaintiff

and other was defendant(O !, r."#. But before the plaintiff is dismissed from the suit, he must

deposit the property in dispute in court(O!, r$#. X can even move the court for an order to get

his name removed from the suit. It would appear that in such a suit it is not necessary that the

plaintiff must admit claim in entirety. To the e%tent he admits his liability he may as& the rival

claimants to interplead.

8 | P a g e


6/31

'ho claims no interest other than for charges or costs. These words indicate that the plaintiff in

an interpleader suit must be in a real position of impartiality. A railway company which claims

no interest in goods in its possession other than a lien on the goods for wharfage, demurrage and

freight, may institute an interpleader suit where the goods are claimed by two persons adversely

to each other .$

A holds in his hands a sum of )s. !,*** which is claimed by B and + adversely to each other.A

institutes an interpleader suit against B and +. It is found at the hearing that A had entered into an

agreement with B before the institution of the suit that if B succeeded in the suit he should accept

from A )s. ",*** only in fullsatisfaction of his claim. ere A has, by virtue of the agreement, an

interest in the sub-ect matter of the suit, and he is not, therefore, entitled to institute an

interpleader suit. The suit must be dismissed.

A party who has ta&en an indemnity from one of the claimants is not entitled to file an

interpleader suit." A suit is not necessarily an interpleader suit and sub-ect to the provisions of

this section, merely because one of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff reuires the defendants to

interplead together concerning certain claims. The court must have regard to all the prayers of

the plaint to determine the e%act nature of the suit. ! A plaint in an interpleader suit can be

amended by inclusion of new properties and -oinder of new parties./

1a$iah " ua*eddiar 91:81; 1 0LJ383'

2Bo$ay Baroda *ly'#o' " asoon 91


7/31

1. GENERAL CONCEPT OF SUIT

The term suit is not defined under the in the +.0.+. but by various decisions it can be said that

12uit ordinarily means a civil proceedings instituted by presentation of a plaint. +ivil suit is the

institution of litigation for enforcement of civil rights (or substantive rights, it may be against

state or individual#. A suit is resulted into decree. 'ithout suit there can not be a decree.

There are four essentials of a suit3

1. Name of Parties (there must be two opposing parties# 4 In a suit there must be at least

two parties the plaintiff 5 the defendant. There is no limitation with regards to number on

either side.

2. Cause of Actions 6 it is a set of facts or circumstances that a plaintiff is reuired to

prove. A person is party to a suit if there is a cause of action against him. The cause or

the set of events or circumstances which leads or resulted into presentation of a plaint or

filing a suit. 6 lay man language

7egally 6 The cause of action means every facts which is necessary for the plaintiff(s# to

be proved with a view to obtain a decree in his favour.

+ause of action means all essential facts constituting the right and its infringement.

8very plaint must disclose a cause of action if not, it is the duty of the court to re-ect the

plaint 6 O.3, ).

. Su!"ect matter 6 there must be a sub-ect matter (with what respect or aspect civil dispute

is#.

2ection49. +ourts to try all civil suits unless barred. The +ourts shall (sub-ect to the

provisions herein contained# have -urisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature e%cepting

suits of which their cogni:ance is either e%pressly or impliedly barred.

@ P'0'Bakshi, u%%le$ent to 0ullas Code of Ci"il Pro#edure 917th ed', Bo$ay

N'0'Tri%ati Pri"ate Li$ited, 1::2;'

@ | P a g e


8/31


9/31


10/31

-uris%iction re$atin* to su!"ect matter 4 It is power and authority of a court to try a particular

type of suit

Ori*ina$ -uris%iction 6 In e%ercise of the original -urisdiction, court tries original suits instituted

in that court.

A((e$$ate -uris%iction 6 In e%ercise of the appellate -urisdiction, the court hears appeals from

decree and order passed by subordinate courts.

ote C4 There are certain court which have only original -urisdiction but some of the courts which

have both original and appellate -urisdiction

Section 10. Stay of suit o +ourt shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in

issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same

parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title

where such suit is pending in the same or any other +ourt in India having -urisdiction to grant the

relief claimed, or in any +ourt beyond the limits of India established or continued by the +entral

Dovernment and having li&e -urisdiction, or before the 2upreme +ourt.9

8%planation E The pendency of a suit in a foreign +ourt does not preclude the +ourts in India

from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

Section 11.Res judicata. o +ourt shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and

substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the

same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the

same title, in a +ourt competent to try such subseuent suit or the suit in which such issue has

been subseuently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such +ourt

: T'L'Denkatara$aAyiar, 0ulla on The Code of Ci"il Pro#edure 913th ed', Bo$ay

N'0'Tri%athi Pri"ate Li$ited, 1:=@;'

1 | P a g e


11/31


12/31

(c# the person from whom such debt, money or property is claimed, must not be claiming any

interest therein other than the charges and costs and he must be ready to pay or deliver it to

rightful claimantE and

(d# there must be no suit pending in which the rights of the rival claimants can be properly

decided.

SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY OF THE SECTION.

'here X is under a liability for any debt, sum of money, or other property, claimed adversely by

A or B or more, and he desires protection against a wrong payment or delivery, he can file a suit

under this section. The only way, in fact, in which he can protect himself is by filing such a suitE

otherwise if he litigated with the claimant separately, he 'ould have to pay the costs of the

successful claimant.It is necessary that the liability to someone must be admitted and there must

be no collusion and no interest in the sub-ect matter other than for charges or costs.

A suit under this section is called an interpleader suit because the plaintiff is really not interested

in the matter, but only the defendants interplead asto their claims. In fact each of the defendants

so interpleading is virtually in the position of a plaintiff and his claim will be governed by the

rules of the 7imitation Act.$ A reading of 2. >>, +ivil 0. +., would clearly show that the court

does not have -urisdiction to travel beyond what has been admitted by the plaintiff as due from

himher or it. The +ourt cannot direct any further payment or investigate into any uestion

relating to the transaction alleged between the parties.

In order to determine whether a suit is an interpleader suit under the section the +ourt

must have regard to all the prayers in the plaint. The mere fact that the plaintiff reuires the

defendants to interplead as regards one of the reliefs claimed would not necessarily ma&e it

an interpleader suit.

11

12AI* 1:28 0ad 7:@ 98=2; 9+B;'

139l:


13/31

'here a party in the position of a mere sta&e4holder is made a defendant in a suit, his

proper course is to deposit the money (if it is a suit for money# into +ourt and as& that the

parties really interested may be substituted for himself as defendants. 2uch deposit by

him is a valid discharge for him and if the +ourt paid it to a wrong person he is not respon4

sible. But in view of the definition of the e%pression Hinterpleader

suitH and the procedure governing such suits given in this section, the +ourt of 'ards can

institute interpleader suit against several claimants, when, on the death of any person of

whose property the +ourt of 'ards has assumed -urisdiction, the succession to his property

is disputed. 2uch a suit falls prima facie within this section and is not barred by 2. "> of the

0un-ab Act." Also, Order !, )ule ! does not bar all interpleader suits as against the

landlord. It bars such a suit when a claim adverse to the landlord is put forward by a person

not claiming through the landlord himself i.e. when such an adverse claim is put forward on

a title independent of the landlord.!

'here in e-ectment petition filed by both rival landlords against tenant, a Ban& on

ground of non4payment of rent 4 0etitioner one of rival landlord claimed himself to have

become e%clusive owner of suit property under mutual partition and Ban& was not a party to

said compromise or settlement 4 Interpleader suit filed by Ban& for deciding title of suit

property would be maintainable. 'here in an interpleader suit, the original plaintiff,

who was a tenant was not claiming any title to the property and the rival defendants were

claiming title to the property and in fact, the dispute was between the rival defendants and

not between the plaintiff and the defendants to the suit, the order holding that one set of

claimants to the property will act as a plaintiff and the other set of claimants as defendant to

the suit and the rights of tenant would be safeguarded by holding that he would go on

depositing the rent in the +ourt was proper.

Claims must be bona fide and advese to one anot!e.

The claims of the defendants must be bona fide ones, though they need not have a

common origin. The +ourt must be satisfied that there isa real uestion to be tried. A

17 AI* 1:87 Pun 13 917; 9+B; '

1891:@:; 2 Cal LJ @ 918;'

13 | P a g e


14/31

mere prete%t of conflicting claims is not sufficient. 'here there was no claim or counter

claim between the parties, the provisions of 2. >> would not apply. / The defendants must

also claim the money or property adversely to one another from the plaintiff. 3 A decision

given on the claims of the co4defendants in an interpleader suit will operate as res4-udicata

between them.> It is, however, not necessary that the plaintiff must show the e%istence of

an apparent title in each of the defendants claiming the property in dispute. or is it

necessary that the claims should be legal claims or rights. 8uitable claims and rights can be

entertained and given effect to.

Claims must be "it! efeen#e to t!e same sub$e#t%matte.

The rival claims must be with reference to the same debt, sum of money, or other

property, but not necessarily to the same e%tent. It is thus not necessary that each of

the defendants should claim the whole of the sub-ect4matter of the suit. 2imilarly, it is not

necessary that the plaintiff should admit the claim as made by the rival claimants in its

entirety. e may as& them to interplead to the e%tent he admits liability.9 The Fsame debt,

sum of money, or other propertyF would not, it is conceived, include a claim for unliuidated

damages, though it might include a chose in action.

Order /, ). 3 applies to an interpleader suit and if it appears from the pleadings that

there is some further property besides the sub-ect4matter of the interpleader suit which is part

of the estate but has somehow been omitted from it, it can be brought within the suit by way of

amendment of the plaint. This section does not prevent such a procedure being adopted.$*

Plaintiff s!ould #laim no inteest in t!e sub$e#t%matte.

1=91::2; 1 Pat LJ* 3=8 93@2;'

1@AI* 1:22 Cal 13< 913:; 9+B;'

1


15/31

The plaintiff must be in an impartial position$. If he has, in some way, identified himself with

one of the parties, in the sense that it will ma&e a difference to him which of the two

succeeds, an interpleader suit will not lie.$$ Thus, a person who has ta&en an indemnity

from one of the claimants, cannot file a suit under this section, though he will not be

refused relief, if he has merely a natural affinity for one side rather than the other. A right

of lien. e. g., for wharfage, demurrage or freight, is not an interest in the property for the

purposes of this section.$

6. 7C'ar*es or costs78 meanin* of.

The words Fcharges or costsF include costs of suit, freight, warehouse rent, doc& rent,

wharfage, demurrage and other charges. A lien can be declared for such charges in an

interpleader suit, but the amount of those charges, if disputed, ought to form the sub-ect

of a separate proceeding between the lien4holder and the ad-udicated claimant.$" (#

0laintiff must be ready to payor deliver the property to the rightful owner. (Order !, )ule $.#.

Addition of parties in interpleader suit.(Order , )ule *.#

21 T'L'Denkatara$aAyiar, 0ulla on The Code of Ci"il Pro#edure 913th ed', Bo$ay

N'0'Tri%athi Pri"ate Li$ited, 1:=@;'

22AI* 1:82 0ad 8=7 98=7;'

2391


16/31

. PLAINT IN T0E INTERPLEADER SUIT

R. . In every suit of interpleader the plaint shall, in addition the other statementsnecessary for plaints, state-

(a) that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter in dispute other

than for chares or costs!

(b) the claims made by the defendants severally! and

(c) that there is no collusion bet"een the plaintiff and any of the defendants.

The conditions necessary for the institution and maintainability of the interpleader suit areE

(# some debt or money or other property, movable or immovable, is due from the plaintiff,

($# Two or more persons bona fide claim the same adversely to one another from the plaintiff

who is not able to &now who the rightful claimant is,

(# 0laintiff should not have anyinterest therein other than for charges or costs,

("# e must be prepared to payor deliverthe same to the rightful claimant and for that purpose

unconditionally place it at the disposal ofthe +ourt and

(!# The suit must be instituted bona fide without any collusion for a decree as to the rightful

claimant and for obtaining indemnity for himself.

Gerely because the amount admitted by the plaintiff to be due is less than claimed by the

defendants it cannot be said that the plaintiff claimed an interest in the sub-ect4matter in dispute.

An interpleader suit will, therefore, be maintainable.$! The e%pression HplaintH emphasises the

character of the proceedings. It euates it with a proceeding in any other suit.

28AI* 1:== AndhPra :2 9:7,:=;'

1= | P a g e


17/31

In an interpleader suit it is not open for the +ourt with limited -urisdiction to direct that the

amount deposited should be paid over to one or the other party and such payment is permissible

provided the disputing party establishes the claim in +ivil +ourt. 'here the plaintiff claims

anyinterest in the concerned property the interpleader suit has to fail.

The +ourt does not have -urisdiction to travel beyond what4has been admitted by the

plaintiff as due from himher or it. The +ourt cannot direct any further payment or investi4

gate into any uestion relating to the transaction alleged between the parties. $/ Tenant cannot file

interpleader suit against his landlord.$3

2=92; 3 0ad LJ 72< 972:;'

2@AI* 28 9NEC; 712 28 932; All Ind Case =


18/31

#. PAENT OF T0ING CLAIED IN T0E COURT

R.#. $here the thin claimed is capable of bein paid into %ourtor placed in the custody of the %ourt, the plaintiff may be re-

&uired to so payor place it before he can be entitled to any order in the suit.

&&'a( be e)uied to so *a(o *la#e it.+

'here the sub-ect4matter of the dispute is a chose in action its disposition as the +ourt

may direct is a sufficient compliance with the rule. The +ourt has a discretion to ma&e

such orders as regards the sub-ect4matter in dispute and the party is bound to obey the order

before he can as& for any relief in the suit. This is a further condition that will be imposed

upon the party to test his bona fides or disinterestedness. If he is not ready to payor deliver

the property to one of the defendants but disputes his title, the suit is not an interpleader

suit.$> But if the plaintiff complies with the order of the +ourt he is fully discharged from

liability. Thus, where the plaintiff pays the amount in dispute into4+ourt for payment to the

right person, but the +ourt pays it to the wrong person the plaintiff cannot be made respon4

sible for the mista&e of the +ourt but is fully discharged from liability.$9

In interpleader suit it is not open for the +ourt with limited -urisdiction to direct that the

amount deposited should be paid over to one or the other party as such payment is permis4

sible provided the disputing party establishes the claim in +ivil +ourt.

Pa(ment to one of t!e #ontestants on se#uit(.

The money paid into +ourt cannot be handed over to one of the parties pending the suit

even on security after the original plaintiff is discharged and one of the rival defendants to

2


19/31

the interpleader suit is made a plaintiff. It must be &ept under the control of the +ourt

available for payment at any time to the successful party.

1: | P a g e


20/31

9. PROCEDURE /0ERE DEFENDANT IS SUING

PLAINTIFF.

R. . $here any of the defendants in an interpleader-suit is actu-

ally suin the plaintiff in respect of the subject-matter of such

suit, the %ourt in "hich the suit aainst the plaintiff is pendin

shall, on bein informed by the %ourt in "hich the interpleader-suit has been insti-

tuted, stay theproceedins as aainst him! and his costs in the suit so stayed may

be provided for in such suit! but if, and in so far as, they are not provided for in

that suit, they may be added to his costs incurred in the interpleader-suit.

Le,islative #!an,es.

Jnder the old +ode proceedings in another suit by the defendant against the plaintiff

could be stayed only after a decree in the interpleader suit. Jnder the present rule, such

proceedings can be stayed even on the institution of the interpleader suit.

S#o*e.

Before passing an order of stay under O. !, ). , the +ourt has to consider the

applicability or otherwise of the bar contained in O. !, ). !.And O. !, ). in clear terms casts

an obligation upon the +ourt which has sei:ed of an interpleader suit to inform the +ourt in

which suit against plaintiff is pending that an interpleader suit inter parties and in relation to suit

property is pending. In other words, the information must come only through +ourt and none

else. O. !, ). is not applicable to the proceedings before )ent +ontroller as the said proceedings are not proceedings in a suit. But where e-ectment was sought against petitioner

tenant of @oint indu =amily firm by two sets of persons one being sons of landlord to whom the

petitioner paid rent and another being purchasers who claimed to have purchased property from

2 | P a g e


21/31

widow of the&arta, interpleader suit at the instance of tenant petitioner was maintainable and was

obligatory on the +ourt to stay the e-ectment proceedings by the filing of the interpleader suit.*

'here in an interpleader suit the original plaintiffs are not claiming any title to the

property and in fact the dispute is between the rival defendants, the rights of tenant would

be safeguarded by holding that he would go on depositing the rent in the +ourt, till decision

of the suit. An appeal lies from an order under this rule. (O. ", ). (p#.#

391:


22/31

6. PROCEDURE AT FIRST 0EARING.

R. ". (# 't the first hearin the %ourt may-

(a) declare that the plaintiff is dischared from all liability to the defendants in

respect of the thin claimed, a"ard him his costs, and dismiss him from the suit! or

(b) if it thins that justice or convenience so re&uire, retain all parties until the

final disposal of the suit.

(#) $here the %ourt finds that the admissions of the parties or other evidence

enable it to do so, it may adjudicate the title to the thin claimed.

() $here the admissions of the parties do not enable the %ourt so to adjudicate,

it may direct-

(a) that an issue or issues bet"een the parties be framed and tried, and

(b) that any claimant be made a plaintiff in lieu of or in addition to the oriinal

plaintiff,

and shall proceed to try the suitin the ordinary manner

Le,islative #!an,es.

o change is made in ). " by the Amendment Act of 93/ or by Amendment Acts of

999 and $**$. 2ub4rule (# has been adopted from the 8nglish )ules of the 2upreme

+ourt, and substituted for cl. (d# of the old 2. "3. The change e%pressly authori:es a +ourt

to ma&e one of the claimants a plaintiff in lieu of, or in addition to, the original plaintiff.

The uestion whether a party to an interpleader issue shall be treated as plaintiff or

defendant must be decided by the real merits of the case and not by the mere form of the

issue itself. The +ourt may in its discretion add a party claiming to be interested in an

interpleader suit upon his own application.

3191


23/31

Fist !eain,.

The e%pression Ffirst hearingF in this rule means the date on which the +ourt goes into

the pleadings in order to understand the contentions of the parties. ence, the plaintiff in an

interpleader suit is entitled to apply to theH +ourt, as soon as the pleadings have been cornpleted,

for being discharged from the suit.$

+lause (a# of ). " (# of O. ! provides for substantive relief of a declaration by the

+ourt as to the discharge of the plaintiff from all liability to the defendants. 2uch a declara4

tion prevents a loss. It prevents a liability being fastened upon the plaintiff.

It is only in cases where the amount is not in dispute and where plaintiff pays into

+ourt the entire amount that the court may declare that the plaintiff is discharged from all

liability. 'here the amount is in dispute, the +ourt may declare that the plaintiff is dis4

charged from liability only to the e%tent of the amount admitted and leave parties to settle

their disputes for the balance otherwise or in other proceedings. "In an interpleader suit which

was not properly instituted or which was instituted malafide or with ulterior motive the discretion

of the +ourt in awarding costs as against the plaintiff is not in any way ta&en away.

'here order was passed granting permission to open sealed cover in presence of

advocate of both parties and opening of pac&et was considered to be essential in interest

of both the parties and defendant also reported no ob-ection if +ourt permitted the same,

ob-ection for opening of sealed cover by defendant at stage of recording evidence on

ground that +ourt had not adopted proper procedure under O. !, ). " cannot be al4

lowed.!

32AI* 1:3< Cal2


24/31

Non%a**eaan#e of #laimants.

On the non4appearance of claimants in a properly instituted interpleader suit the proper

course for the +ourt is laid down under sub4rule (#. It is competent to the +ourt4

(# to discharge the plaintifffrom all liability to the claimants4defendants in respect of

the sub-ect4matter in dispute and dismiss him from the suit,

($# to direct the plaintiff to pay the amount into +ourt to the credit of the proper

claimant after deducting his costs.

(# to direct the claimants4defendants to apply for payment and when they appear

ma&e one of them a plaintiff and raise an issue, and

("# to restrain by in-unction either defendant in a proper case from ta&ing any proceed4

ing against the plaintiff./

Sub%ule. -/.

The sub4rule e%pressly provides that once the suit has proceeded on trial it shall be

tried li&e any other suit in the ordinary manner, thus attracting the provisions of O., ).*

and O./, ).3 of the +ode. The +ourt can, therefore, allow amendment of plaint by

inclusion of certain property in the sub-ect4matter of the suit and by addition of certainparties as

defendants.3

An interpleader suit against a company in liuidation is a suit or proceeding against the

company within 2. ""/ of the +ompanies Act, 9!/ and such a suit cannot be filed or

continued without the leave of the +ompany +ourt in which liuidation proceedings against

the company are pending.

A**eal.

3=AI* 1:1: Bo$ 18 91=;'

3@AI* 1:@< Pat 181 9182; 9+B;'

27 | P a g e


25/31

An appeal lies from an order under this rule.(*.", )., cl.(p#.# An order dismiss4

ing the interpleader suit itself or an ad-udication upon the claims of the defendants in the

interpleader suit will, however, be a decree and appealable as such under 2ection 9/ of

the +ode. An order adding a defendant to an interpleader suit on his application is one passed

under O. , ). * and not under this rule and, as such, is not appealable.>

3< AI* 1:8< ?er 37'

28 | P a g e


26/31

:. AGENTS AND TENANTS A NOT INSTITUTE

INTERPLEADER SUIT.

R. !. *othin in this +rder shall be deemed to enable aents to sue their

principals, or tenants to sue their landlords, for the purpose of compellin them to

interplead "ith any persons other than persons main claim throuh such

principals or landlords.

Illustations

(a# A deposits a bo% of -ewels "ith B as his agent. + alleges that the -ewels were wrongfully

obtained from him by A, and claims them from B. B cannot institute an interpleader4suit against

A and +.

(b# A deposits a bo% of -ewels with B as his agent. e then writes to + for the purpose of ma&ing

the -ewels a security for a debt due from himself to +. A afterwards alleges that +Hs debt is

satisfied, and + alleges the contrary. Both claim the -ewels from B, B may institute an

interpleader suit against A and +.

Inte*leade suits b( a,ents.

This rule declares a prohibition and its concluding part provides an e%ception. The

reason for the rule seems to be that an agent cannot ordinarily dispute the title of his princi4

pal. The illustrations to the rule e%plain the rule so far as agents are concerned. In Illustra4

tion (a# + claims adversely to A but not through A, whereas in Illustration (b# + claims

through & In order to bring the case within the rule it has to be shown that the plaintiff is

agent of the defendant and has instituted the suit for the purpose of compelling the defen4

dant to interplead with persons other than persons ma&ing claim through him. Thus, where

a +ourt of 'ards instituted an interpleader suit against its wards, some of whom after their

fatherHs death claimed possession of property for the eldest brother by the rule of primo4

geniture while others claimed it for all the brothers, the rule of primogeniture not being

2= | P a g e


27/31

applicable, it was held that the rival claimants being the wards themselves, the suit did not

come within the prohibition enacted in ). !. 9 As to the definitions of agent and principal,

see 2ection >$ of the +ontract Act. The relationship between a ban& and a customer

depositing money in the savings ban& account is that of debtor and creditor and not that of

agent and principal. ence, on a dispute as to the ownership of the deposit arising between

the customer and a third person, the interpleader suit filed by the Ban& would not come

within the prohibition of this rule."*

Inte*leade suits b( ail"a( #om*an(.

A railway company by accepting goods for carriage does not become the agent of the

consignor. It merely enters into an independent contract with the consignor. It can therefore

file an interpleader suit against the consignor and another party claiming adversely to the

consignor."

Inte*leade suits b( tenants.

The prohibition that a tenant cannot file an interpleader proceeding against his landlord

is based on the principle that he cannot dispute the title of his landlord during the subsistence

of the tenancy."$ A tenant cannot therefore bring a suit against his landlord for the purpose of

compelling him to interplead with any person other than a person ma&ing claim through

such landlord." Thus, where a tenant passed two &abuliats in favour of two persons in

respect of the same land and then, being threatened by suits by both of them, instituted a suit

praying Fthat the +ourt may be pleased to declare which defendant has what right in which

of the disputed lands, and in what right the plaintiff holds which of the said lands and under

3:AI* 1:87 Pun& 13 917; 9+B;'

7AI* 1:8@ 0ad @78 9@7


28/31

whomF, it was held by the igh +ourt of +alcutta that the suit was not maintainable. "" In

order that a person may be said to claim through a landlord for the purpose of this rule, the

right under which such person claims must have arisen after the commencement of the

tenancy. Thus, where A leases a certain property to B, B cannot compel A to interplead with

+ who claims to have purchased the property from A before the grant of the lease."!

But the doctrine of estoppel between the lessor and the lessee does not apply to

disentitle a lessee to dispute the derivative title of one who claims to have since become

entitled to the reversion. Thus an interpleader suit by a lessee against the assignees of the

lessor and the Dovernment in whom the leased estate vested by virtue of the Bihar 7and

)eforms Act, for determining whether the rents and royalties held in deposit are payable to

which of the defendants is maintainable.

The tenant feeling any difficulty in payment of rent can invo&e provisions of Order !

and can file an interpleader suit and can ma&e submission in the same that two persons are

treating themselves as landlords and +ourt should admit that he is a tenant and he should

deposit the rent and the +ourt will decide who is the landlord.

'here on death of landlady, the tenant instituted an interpleader suit for determining

as to which heir of landlady she should pay the rent, and she started paying rent to one of the

two alleged heirs. owever, other heir never claimed himself to be landlord ua the plaintiff

tenant. ence, interpleader suit by tenant denying title of her landlord was not maintain4

able.

'here A leases certain lands to B and on AHs death two persons claim rent from B,

namely AHs heir on the one hand and a person who alleges that A was only a benamidar for

X whose heir he is, it has been held that the latter must be regarded as claiming through A

and that thereforeC B can file an interpleader suit compelling the two claimants to interplead

with each other.

7791:1; 3@ Cal882 988@; 9+B;

78AI* 1:7 Born 717 9718; 9+B;'

2< | P a g e


29/31

'here a mortgagee does not deny an assignment by him of his rights under the bond

to X but only contends that it is avoidable one, the mortgagor may treat the assignee as

entitled to the money and is not bound to bring an Interpleader suit compelling the mortgagee

and X to interplead with each other ."/

The applicability or otherwise of the bar contained in this rule has to be considered

before passing an order of stay under O. !, ). . 8viction proceedings are not liable to

be stayed at the behest of tenant who otherwise also is not -ustified to file an interpleader

suit in view of bar of O. !, ). !.

C'ar*e for ($aintiff;s costs.

R. /. $here the suit is properly instituted the %ourt may provide for the costs of theoriinal plaintiff by ivin him a chare on the thin claimed or in some other

effectual "ay.

S#o*e of t!e ule.

This rule provides for the award of costs to the original plaintiff. 2uch costs when awarded will

be deducted from the fund on its being brought to +ourt or will be a first charge upon the fund or

sub-ect4matter."3 Thus in an interpleader suit which is not properly instituted or which was

instituted mala fide or with ulterior motive the discretion of the +ourtin awarding costs as against

the plaintiff is not in any way ta&en away.

But the plaintiff will not be entitled to costs which have been unnecessarily incurred.

Appeal. An appeal lies from an order under this rule.(*.", )., +l.(p#.#

7=AI* 1:17 0ad =27 9=2


30/31

4. CONCLUSION

An interpleader suit is a proceeding by which a person from whom some persons are claiming

same property, debt or money and who does not himself claim such property debt or money and

neither dispute such debt, such person can file a suit claiming that he is ready to pay or deliver

the said property or money to rightful claimant and can protect himself from legal proceedings

by calling upon such claimants to interplead, that is to say claim against one and other so that

title to the property or the debt may be decided. Geaning thereby, an Hinterpleader suitH is a suit in

which the real dispute is not between the plaintiffs and defendants but between the defendants

only and the plaintiff is not really interested in the sub-ect4matter of the suit.A suit under this

section is called an interpleader suit because the plaintiff is really not interested in the matter, but

only the defendants interplead as to their claims. In fact each of the defendants so interpleading

is virtually in the position of a plaintiff and his claim will be governed by the rules of the

7imitation Act. A reading of 2. >>, +ivil 0. +., would clearly show that the court does not have

-urisdiction to travel beyond what has been admitted by the plaintiff as due from himher or it.

The +ourt cannot direct any further payment or investigate into any uestion relating to the

transaction alleged between the parties.

The claims of the defendants must be bona fide ones, though they need not have a

common origin. The +ourt must be satisfied that there is a real uestion to be tried. A

mere prete%t of conflicting claims is not sufficient. 'here there was no claim or counter

claim between the parties, the provisions of 2. >> would not apply. The defendants must

also claim the money or property adversely to one another from the plaintiff. A decision

given on the claims of the co4defendants in an interpleader suit will operate as res4-udicata

between them. It is, however, not necessary that the plaintiff must show the e%istence of

an apparent title in each of the defendants claiming the property in dispute. or is it

necessary that the claims should be legal claims or rights. 8uitable claims and rights can be

entertained and given effect to.

3 | P a g e


31/31

3I3LIOGRAP05

BOOKS REFERRED

• ?..+hitaly, 'IR %ommentaries he %ode of %ivil rocedure (agpurC All India

)eporter 7imited, 93$#.

• G.2.Gehta, ' %ommentary on he %ode of %ivil rocedure (AllahabadC 'adhwa and

+ompany, 99*#.

• +.K.Ta&wani, %ivil rocedure (rd ed., 7uc&nowC 8astern Boo& +ompany, 99/#

• 0.G.Ba&shi, Supplement to /ullas %ode of %ivil rocedure ("th ed., BombayC

.G.Tripati 0rivate 7imited, 99$#.

• T.7.en&ataramaAyiar, /ulla on he %ode of %ivil rocedure (th ed., BombayC

.G.Tripathi 0rivate 7imited, 9/3#.

WEBSITES REFERRED

• www.va&ilno.combareactscivilprocedures

• indiankanoon.org/search

• www.legalserviceindia.com/article/
http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/civilprocedure/shttp://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/civilprocedure/s

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ajitabh
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Cpc Main Project (1)

Documents