Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(7) Whether defendants 4 and 5 are necessary parties to the suit?
(8) Whether the third defendant is entitled to any portion of the suit amount?
(9) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit?
(10) To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled?"

5. In the lower Court, the defendants conceded under Issue No. 9 that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The only other Issue tried by the lower Court was issue No. 1. On that issue, the lower Court held that, since the plaintiffs' claim that they are agriculturists and that the debt has to be scaled down under Madras Act IV of 1938 and that, if so scaled down, the amount due is only Rs. 30,000 is disputed by the defendants and since that is a very material point in dispute between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendants on the other, the suit filed as an interpleader suit is not maintainable. The lower Court also observed that since the deposit of Rs. 30,000 made along with the plaint was a conditional deposit, it takes it away from the category of interpleader suit. The other issues viz. Issue Nos. 2 to 8 were not tried. But the suit was dismissed on the finding that the suit is not maintainable as an interpleader suit. Hence this appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.

6. By an order dated 1-9-64, this Court ordered notice to the learned Advocate General as the question whether an interpleader suit can include issues arising between the plaintiffs and other claimants is an important one, and he has therefore, appeared in this appeal and argued the case.

7. It is argued by Mr. Ch. Sankarasastry, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the Civil Procedure Code provided for the institution of an interpleader suit for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall he made and of obtaining indemnity for himself. Therefore, the main issue to be decided by the Court in a suit instituted under Section 88 C. P. C. with respect to a debt, sum of money or other property, moveable or immoveable was for obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made. In the present case, it is pointed out that there are rival claimants to the amount due under the suit mortgage. No doubt, the plaintiffs claimed that they are agriculturists within the meaning of Madras Act IV of 1938 and that, if the debt is scaled down, only an amount of Rs. 30,000 is really due on the date of the plaint and this claim is disputed by the defendants. But the Court can decide the main question without considering the issue as to what exactly the amount due is under the mortgage bond. According to Mr. Sankara Sastry, the person, who is adjudged to be entitled to the debt due under the mortgage bond, can receive this admitted sum of Rs. 30,000 without prejudice to his right to claim the balance in a separate proceeding from the plaintiffs and recover the same if It is really duo under law.

8. The learned Advocate General argued that, having regard to the scope and intendment of an interpleader suit, it is essential that there should be no dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants as to the amount due, or in other words, unless the plaintiffs admit their liability for the entire amount claimed, they cannot at all institute an interpleader suit. According to the learned Advocate General, the remedy of the plaintiffs in this case is only to institute a suit for redemption making parties to the suit as defendants the rival claimants and not to file an interpleader suit. It is also suggested that, in other cases of simple debts or other property, moveable or innoveable, the person has to wait till a suit is filed by one of the claimants and seek addition of the rival claimants also as parties to that suit so that all questions might he finally decided so as to he binding on all parties.

Rule 2. Where the thing claimed is capable of being paid into Court, or placed in the custody of the Court, the plaintiff may be required to so pay or place it before he can be entitled to any order in the suit.

Rule 3. Where any of the defendants in an interpleader suit is actually suing the plaintiff in respect of the subject-matter of the suit, the Court in which the suit against the plaintiff is pending shall, on being informed by the Court in which the interpleader suit has been instituted, stay the proceedings as against 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.