Poonam @ Indira v. Prahlad Sharma and Others, 2026

The case arose out of a civil suit concerning the affairs and management of Janhit Seva Charitable Trust.

Smt. Asharfi Devi, one of the original plaintiffs, was associated with the Trust as a trustee/patron.

Asharfi Devi had instituted the suit in connection with the affairs of the Trust and was therefore acting in a representative capacity, rather than pursuing a purely personal claim.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Asharfi Devi died.

After her death, her daughter Poonam @ Indira filed an application seeking to be impleaded as the legal representative of her deceased mother.

The application was filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC.

The petitioner argued that, being the daughter and legal heir of the deceased plaintiff, she should be permitted to continue the proceedings.

It was also argued that allowing her substitution would not cause prejudice to the defendants.

The trial court rejected the application.

The trial court held that Asharfi Devi had instituted the proceedings in her capacity as trustee, and not in her individual capacity.

Therefore, her position as trustee could not automatically devolve upon her daughter by inheritance.

Aggrieved by the trial court's order, Poonam approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court examined whether a legal heir of a deceased trustee can automatically step into the trustee's position and continue litigation instituted in the trustee's representative capacity.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by Poonam @ Indira.

The Court upheld the trial court's decision refusing to substitute the petitioner in place of her deceased mother.

The Court noted that Asharfi Devi had instituted the suit not in her individual capacity but as a trustee.

Since the litigation was connected with the Trust and was pursued in a representative capacity, the right to continue the proceedings did not automatically pass to Asharfi Devi's legal heirs.

The Court reiterated that trusteeship is not an inheritable right.

The position of a trustee does not automatically pass to the trustee's children, spouse or other legal heirs upon death.

The relevant position in the Trust devolves upon surviving trustees or persons duly appointed as trustees in accordance with the Trust's governing instrument or applicable legal procedure.

The Court relied upon the principle laid down in Sitabai Ramchandra Jaltare v. Masid Nurun Mohalla Jingerwadi, wherein it was recognised that a person cannot continue representative litigation merely because he or she is the legal heir of a deceased trustee.

The Court distinguished between Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

Order XXII Rule 3 deals with substitution where the right to sue survives in favour of the deceased plaintiff's legal representatives.

In the present circumstances, however, the relevant interest was connected with the office of trustee and therefore could not be treated as an inheritable personal right.

The Court held that the principle of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, dealing with devolution of interest, was applicable to such circumstances.

The Court also considered the limited nature of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Relying upon Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, the Court reiterated that Article 227 confers supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction.

The High Court found no jurisdictional error, perversity or illegality in the trial court's order.

Consequently, there was no ground for interference under Article 227.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed as meritless.

Mere succession to the deceased trustee's estate does not confer the status of trustee.

The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate.

A High Court should not interfere merely because another view of the matter may be possible; intervention requires a serious jurisdictional or legal error.

Since the trial court had correctly appreciated the representative capacity in which Asharfi Devi had filed the suit, its order did not warrant interference.