Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order of the learned District Munsif overruling his objection to the inter-pleader suit filed by the 1st respondent in the revision. The suit filed by the petitioner was one for recovery of a sum of Rs. 600 due under a pronote executed by the 1st respondent in favour of Garudamma and transferred to him. In the written statement filed by the respondent to that suit by the petitioner he pleaded 'inter alia' that the original promisee, Garudamma was not in law entitled to transfer the pronote in question and that the adopted son of Garudamma was entitled to the amount and further that he had already paid Rs. 200 on behalf of the pronote amount to Garudamma in the presence of the petitioner himself, who is no other than the maternal uncle of the original promisee. Issues have been framed in the original suit. After the framing of the issues, in consequence of certain notices issued by the adopted son to the respondent claiming the amount due on the promissory note, the respondent filed an interpleader suit to which objections have been taken by the petitioner.
2. In the plaint of the inter-pleader suit the respondent has pleaded more or less the same ground as set out in the written statement filed by him to the previous suit filed by the petitioner. Therein he raised the contention that the transfer was without legal authority that the original promisee was only the holder of life estate, that she was not entitled to dispose of any property, that the adopted son was the person properly entitled to claim the amount, and that he had discharged the pronote in part payment of a sum of Rs. 200 during the lifetime of the original promisee.
3. The question now is whetherr this interpleader suit could be entertained and whetherthere is sufficient justification for allowing therespondent to file the suit. This suit is obviously filed under Section 88 of the Civil P. C.Mr. Neti Subramanjam the learned counsel forthe petitioner has invited my attention to thedecision reported in 'Hari Karmarkar v.J. A. Robin'. 4 Rang 465, which is more orless on facts similar to those contained in thepresent petition. In that decision it has beenheld that if the plaintiff in the inter-pleadersuit was found to have any interest in thesubject-matter of the suit or that if he wasfound to have colluded with one of the claimants, then the right to file an inter-pleadersuit could not be availed of by him. On thefacts of the present case it is evident bothfrom the written statement filed by the 1strespondent as also the plaiut filed by him inthe inter-pleader suit that he has sufficientinterest in seeing that the claim of the petitioner is defeated. The contents of the writtenstatement as well as the plaint would pointout only to that fact. Besides there is alsoample evidence to show that the 1st respondent is in collusion with cne of the claimants,namely, the adopted son. In this view I donot think that there is enough justification forallowing the 1st respondent to file the interpleader suit. In this connection Mr. Sub-ramaniam has also invited my attention to adecision in 'National Insurance Co. Ltd.v. Dhirendra Nath : AIR1938Cal287 . The principle laid therein is that inorder to enable a party to file an inter-pleadersuit the party should be in a position to walkout of the suit with a mere claim for costsand shall not be entitled to have any othermatter of contest between himself and theclaimants. In this case the fact that the 1strespondent is claiming to have paid Rs. 200already to the original promisee and is alsoraising contentions which have to be gone intoat length to find out whether the transfer isvalid, whether the petitioner is a holder indue course and so forth will certainly notbring the inter-pleader suit within the scopeof Section 88 of the Civil P. C. On the other hand.Mr. Kothandaramiah appearing for the respondent has referred to a decision in 'Secretaryof State v. Mir Muhammad', 1 Mad H CRule 360. I do not think the facts of that caseapply to the facts in the present case. In myview the requirements of Section 88 are not satisfied in the present case so as to enable the 1strespondent to file the inter-pleader suit. Thelearned District Munsif, therefore is not rightin having allowed the 1st respondent to file thesuit. The order of the lower Court is set aside.Thjs revision petition is, therefore, allowedwith costs.