Gurugram: A daughter’s bid to step into her late mother’s shoes as trustee of a prominent charitable trust in Haryana’s Faridabad has been firmly rejected by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a ruling that draws a sharp line between personal inheritance and fiduciary duty in Indian trust law.
In a detailed order, Justice Vikas Bahl dismissed a revision petition filed by Poonam alias Indira, seeking to be impleaded as a legal representative of her deceased mother, Asharfi Devi, in a long-running civil suit concerning the Janhit Seva Charitable Trust (and related trusts).
The trial court at Faridabad had earlier ruled that since Asharfi Devi had filed the suit as a trustee (not in her personal capacity), her interest in the trust did not pass to her legal heirs upon her death in 2019.
The HC upheld this view, citing established precedent (including a 1979 Bombay High Court judgment) that trusteeship is not heritable property. Only surviving or properly appointed trustees can continue such litigation.
The case has its roots in a 2015 civil suit filed in Faridabad.
Asharfi Devi, who was the trust’s patron for life, and her son Mahinder Sharma had taken another son, Prahlad Sharma, to court.
They alleged serious irregularities after the family patriarch Shambhu Dayal Shastri’s death, claiming Prahlad had taken control of multiple trusts built by his father and declared himself the new ‘Guru’.
Asharfi Devi died in August 2019. Her daughter Poonam later moved the trial court seeking to be substituted as her legal heir under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) so she could continue the fight.
For clarity, Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC dictates the legal procedure when a plaintiff dies during a pending lawsuit. If the ‘right to sue’ survives, meaning the claim can still be legally pursued by the deceased’s estate, the court must substitute the deceased plaintiff’s Legal Representatives (LRs) to continue the case.
The trial court rejected the application, pointing out that the suit was not a personal matter. It was filed on behalf of the trust. A trustee’s position, the court said, does not pass to heirs like ordinary property. It goes to surviving trustees or those properly appointed.
Delhi HC’s Justice Bahl found no reason to interfere. He examined the plaint and noted that every major prayer in the suit related to the trust’s functioning, its objects, and decisions taken without the plaintiffs’ consent. The suit was clearly filed in a representative capacity, not as an individual claim.
The judge relied on a Bombay High Court judgment from 1979 (Sitabai Ramchandra Jaltare case) which had settled this position long ago: When a trustee dies, his or her legal heirs don’t automatically step into the trustee’s shoes. Only someone duly appointed under the trust can continue the litigation. This is why such cases are handled under Order 22 Rule 10 and not the usual heir substitution rule.
Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC deals with the continuation of a suit when an interest is assigned, created, or devolved during the pendency of a case (as against inheritance). It allows the new party to continue the lawsuit with the court’s permission.
What made Poonam’s position even weaker was that her brother Mahinder Sharma, also a trustee, is very much alive and actively pursuing the case.
Poonam’s lawyers argued that allowing her to join would not harm anyone and that she had no conflict with her mother’s stand. But the HC stuck to the law.
Justice Bahl also reminded everyone about the narrow scope of the powers of Article 227. High courts cannot keep interfering with every order from below just because one party is unhappy. The power has to be used sparingly.
The bigger picture
This verdict is more important than it looks at first glance. Across India, family-run trusts, whether charitable, religious or educational, frequently become battlegrounds after the founder’s death.
Brothers, sisters and cousins fight over control, often dragging the institutions into decades of litigation.
The HC has now sent a straightforward message: Trusteeship is a position of duty, not a piece of inheritable family wealth. If you want to become a trustee, you have to be properly appointed. You can’t claim it just because your parent held the post.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Brand wars to inheritance feuds, India’s mediation space is now a stomping ground for retired judges