Legal Heirs Can't Continue Suit Filed By Deceased Trustee In Representative Capacity, Right Vests In Surviving Trustee: P&H High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that legal heirs of a deceased trustee cannot be impleaded to continue a suit filed by the trustee in a representative capacity, reiterating that the right to pursue such litigation vests only in surviving or duly appointed trustees. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 200].

Justice Vikas Bahl dismissed a revision petition challenging the trial court's refusal to substitute the legal heir of a deceased plaintiff.

The case arose from a civil suit filed by Smt. Asharfi Devi and another in relation to the affairs of Janhit Seva Charitable Trust. Asharfi Devi, who was a trustee/patron of the Trust, passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.

An application was filed by her daughter seeking impleadment as her legal representative under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the suit had been filed by the deceased in her capacity as a trustee and not in her personal capacity.

The petitioner contended that being the daughter of the deceased, she ought to be permitted to continue the suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if such substitution was allowed.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court upheld the trial court's reasoning and observed the suit was filed by Asharfi Devi not in her individual capacity but as a trustee of the Trust.

It is a settled principle that the interest of a trustee does not devolve upon legal heirs but passes to surviving or newly appointed trustees.Legal representatives cannot step into the shoes of a trustee unless they are duly appointed under the scheme of the Trust, the judge noted.

The Court relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Sitabai Ramchandra Jaltare v. Masid Nurun Mohalla Jingerwadi (AIR 1979 Bom 109), which held that in cases where a suit is filed in a representative capacity, legal heirs cannot continue the proceedings unless they assume the role of trustee through proper appointment.

It further clarified that such cases fall under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC (devolution of interest) and not Order 22 Rule 3 CPC (legal representatives).

The Court also reiterated the limited scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, placing reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329. It emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and cannot be invoked as an appellate remedy.

Finding no illegality in the trial court's order, the Court held that no interference was warranted under Article 227 and dismissed the revision petition as meritless.

Mr. Anurag Mor, Advocate, and Mr. Nitin Verma, Advocate and Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate, and Mr. Yuvraj Singh Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Ashmeet Kaur Shah, Advocate for respondents No. 1to 9.

Title: Poonam @ Indira v. Prahlad Sharma and others

Click here to read order