An interpleader suit is essentially a suit which is filed by a person who has no direct interest in the subject-matter of the suit. The classic classroom example is:
‘If you find a diamond ring which two people claim, you – the plaintiff – can file an interpleader suit to ask the Court to decide who among the claimant-defendants the owner of the ring is (and thus absolve yourself of responsibility).’
Such suits are governed by Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In addition to all the usual requirements of a plaint, a plaint in an interpleader suit must state that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter of the suit other than for costs or charges. It must also state that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.
If the thing being claimed is capable of either being paid into the court or being placed in the custody of the court, the plaintiff may be required to pay the amount or place it in the custody of the court to be entitled to an order in the suit.
It may so happen that the plaintiff in an interpleader suit is already being sued by a defendant in another proceeding for the subject-matter or the interpleader suit. In such a case, the court in which the plaintiff in the interpleader suit is being sued stays proceedings against the plaintiff and may provide for his costs. If it does not provide for his costs, the costs of the plaintiff in that suit may be added on to his costs in the interpleader suit.
The court hearing the interpleader suit may declare that the plaintiff’s liability to the defendants is discharged in respect of the subject-matter of the suit, award him his costs and dismiss him from the suit at the first hearing of the interpleader suit itself. However, the court may retain all the parties till the final disposal of the suit in the interest of justice or convenience.
Further, if the admissions of the parties or other evidence allow, the court may adjudicate the title of the subject-matter of the suit. If this is not possible, the question of title may be framed as an issue and tried as it would be tried in an ordinary suit either with or without making one of the defendant-claimants a plaintiff whether instead of or in addition to the original plaintiff in the interpleader suit.
Interpleader suits cannot be filed by tenants or by agents so as to make their landlords or principals interplead with persons who have not claimed through such landlords or principals.
Hi,
Its pity that landlord suffers in the hands of tenant. Landlord purchases the property investing his hard earned money. Tenant just by paying 0.1% to 0.3% of property value as rent per month has right to not evict. Is this justified? Hardly the tenants pay 1 to 3% of the property value as rents in most of the cases in a year.
I do agree for commercial properties there will be some kind of difficulties in vacating the premises as there will be a set business. Why the residential properties should have these benefits. Residental properties will not effect the tenant as there is always a scope of getting a new residential property if not at that locality then at some other locality.
The law should change Landlord should have a right on his property. The best thing is if the owner gives in writing for 6 months time vacating the premisis, it should be the good time for the tenant to vacare the residential property. No Tenant should have right to stay in the property if given 6 months notice. Similarly for commercial properties 1 year time should be maximum for vacating the premises.
If you see the number of cases going in courts are increasing at the rapid speed. In this scenario every landlord will have to go to court one time or the other. Why one should buy property give it on rent and get the headache? Just by paying fraction of the cost of the property why the tenant has to enjoy the so called rights?
If any law maker is reading this will surely appreciate my point and will change the law in due course.
Raj
thanks
but my question is that who pays costs in interpleadre suit? is it the winner of the case after the first plaintiff who have insttuted the case? the winner? the looser?
The plaintifft as in other cases pays the suit cost,and later upon gratitude,the winner among the two defendats might refund the suit costs to the plaintiff.