Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.15 seconds)Yeshwant Bhikaji Vilankar vs Sadashiv Govind Arekar on 8 July, 1940
(8) The language of the provisions of Order 35, Rule 5 of the Code has been interpreted in the aforementioned judgment of the Bombay High Court Yeshwant Bhikaji Vilankar V. Sadashiv Govind Arekar and another, A.I.R. 1940, Bombay 414. In that case, it was held that the interpleder suit did not lie because one of the defendants was claiming adversely to the other. Here, in the suit before me, no doubt Jagjit Singh is claiming that he is the sole landlord, but it is not the case of Gurbux Singh or Shrimati Wazir Kaur that have an independent or adverse title to Jagjit Singh.
Section 88 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nanji Koer vs Umatul Batul on 26 June, 1911
(5) It applies equally to agents and tenants. Thus, by virtue of this provision, no tenant can compel his landlord to interplead with a person who claims otherwise than through that landlord. There is a great deal of authority for the proposition that a suit cannot be instituted by the tenant if there are two persons claiming to be the landlords. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Bhushan Chandra Ghose and other V. Jahar Mal Bhutra and others. (1919) Indian Cases 733, Nanji Koer V. Umatul Batal (1912) 13, Indian Cases 40 and Yeshwant Bhikaji Vilankar V. Sadashiv Govind Arekar and another. A. I. R. 1940, Bombay 414, and similar cases. I do not think that any further authority is required for the proposition that a tenant cannot institute a suit by which he compels his landlord to interplead with a person who claims adversely to him. The only question that requires decisions in the present case is, whether the two person who are making a separate claim against the plaintiff in the case before me are claiming through each other or independently of each other. For the purpose of ascertaining the facts of the case it is necessary to refer to plaint...,
(6) There are two points in the plaint which require emphasis. Firstly Nos. 1 and 2 let out the property to the plaintiff some time in 1953. Thus, it cannot be said that Jagjit Singh and Gurbux Singh are not claiming through each other, because according to the plaintiff both of them let out the property to him conjointly. Secondly, according to the claim of defendant No. 2 Jagjit Singh defendant No. 1 was a Benami for Shrimati Wazir Kaur wife of Gurbux Singh. Thus, Shrimati Wazir Kaur also claimed through Jagjit Singh. The position of defendant No. 4 is not explained at all in the plaint. Defendant No. 4, I may mention is Guru Nanak Public Welfare Trust, Jullundur City. Now, can it be said from these facts that the plaintiff is prevailing upon Jagjit Singh to interplead with a person who docs not clam through him. For one thing, Gurbux Singh, defendant No. 2 is himself a landlord, who let out the property Along with Jagjit Singh. It cannot therefore, be said that he claimed independently of Jagjit Singh. As far as defendant No. 3 is concerned, according to the plaintiff's case, Shrimati Wazir Kaur has claimed that Jagjit Singh is her Benami, i.e., Shrimati Wazir Kaur's claim is that she is the real owner. This again is a case wherein it cannot be said that Shrimati Wazir Kaur is claiming otherwise than through Jagjit Singh. After setting out the main features of the plaint it is necessary again to refer to the provisions of the Code contained in Order 35, Rule 5.
Court Of Wards Amb Estate vs Tikka Chain Singh And Ors. on 21 October, 1953
(9) A some what similar case came before the Punjab High Court in Court of Wards Amb Estate V. Tikka Chain Singh and others, . There the Court of Wards, Amb Estate instituted an inter pleader suit seeking to have determined which of its Wards were entitled to claim all the property vesting in that Court. The argument advanced before the court was that the Court. of Wards was an agent and it could not call upon its principals, namely the Wards to interplead among themselves. The Court decided that such a suit did lie, [After citing relevant para, judgment proceeds.]
Thus, Court held that an interpleader suit was not barred when an agent sought to have two or more principals interplead among themselves. The same situation seems to hold true in the present case. The plaintiff is seeking to get two or more of his landlords to interplead among themselves. The illustrations to Order 35, Rule 5 of the Code help in the interpretation of the some what difficult language in which the rule is couched.
1