Interim deposit under Order XXXIX Rule 10 requires a clear admission, not a bona fide dispute over title and possession.

Order XXXIX Rule 10 permits an interim deposit direction only where there is a clear admission sufficient to support relief on admissions and where the relevant money or property is held in the required legal character. Where title, possession, and alleged liability are genuinely disputed, and the defence is supported by surrounding circumstances showing a bona fide contest, the rule cannot be invoked. On the stated facts, the defendants' claim of an oral agreement to sell, payment by cheque, delivery of possession, construction activity, house tax payment, and a pending specific performance suit showed a real dispute rather than a sham defence. The application for interim deposit was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an interim direction for deposit under Order XXXIX Rule 10 could be made when title and possession over the suit property were seriously disputed and the alleged liability was not admitted.

Analysis: Order XXXIX Rule 10 applies only where there is an admission of the kind sufficient to sustain a decree on admissions and where the party concerned holds money or property in the requisite legal character. The defendants' stand that the plaintiff had orally agreed to sell the property, had received full consideration by cheques, and had allowed possession on that basis introduced a substantial dispute on ownership and character of possession. The surrounding circumstances relied upon by the defendants, including the cheques, stamp papers, construction activity, house tax payment, and a pending specific performance suit, were treated as sufficient to show that the defence was not sham or frivolous. In that situation, the prerequisite admission for invoking Order XXXIX Rule 10 was absent.

Conclusion: The application for deposit under Order XXXIX Rule 10 was not maintainable on the facts and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Interim deposit relief was denied because the dispute involved a bona fide contest over ownership and possession, rather than an unequivocal admission attracting the rule.

Ratio Decidendi: Order XXXIX Rule 10 can be invoked only on a clear and sufficient admission of liability or entitlement, and not where the parties' rights over the property are genuinely disputed.

---