Determining the Necessity of Impleading All Trustees in Pending Suits Under Order 31 CPC

In the complex landscape of trust litigation, disputes often arise not just from the merits of the case, but from the procedural validity of who is named as a party to the suit. A critical and frequently debated question is: Are trustees necessary parties under Order 31 Rule 1 CPC when a suit is pending? This issue becomes particularly volatile in the context of public or charitable trusts, where the composition of the board of trustees may change due to death, resignation, or periodic elections while a legal battle is still ongoing.

Failure to correctly identify and implead the necessary trustees can lead to severe consequences, including the rejection of the plaint or the setting aside of decrees due to non-joinder. To navigate these risks, it is essential to understand the interplay between Order 31 Rule 1 and Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Distinguishing Order 31 Rule 1 and Rule 2 CPC

Order 31 of the CPC specifically governs suits by or against trusts and trustees. While they are grouped together, Rule 1 and Rule 2 serve very different functions depending on whether the trust is the plaintiff or the defendant.

Order 31 Rule 1: Suits By Trustees

Order 31 Rule 1 focuses on suits brought by a trustee in their official capacity. Under this rule, the court may direct that a beneficiary be made a party to the suit. Crucially, this rule does not mandate that every single trustee must be a plaintiff for the suit to be maintainable. In many instances, a single trustee can represent the trust, provided they have the proper authorization from the other trustees 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 4108.

There are instances where trial courts have erroneously insisted that all trustees must be impleaded even in suits brought by the trust; however, it has been argued that under Order 31 Rule 1 CPC there is no requirement of impleading of all trustees 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 20545.

Order 31 Rule 2: Suits Against Trustees

The requirements become significantly more stringent when a suit is filed against a trust. Order 31 Rule 2 stipulates that where there are several trustees, they shall all be made parties to a suit against one or more of them.

This is a mandatory requirement. Indian courts have consistently held that a suit against a trust is likely to fail if not all trustees are impleaded, unless the trust deed specifically allows for a different arrangement 2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 395 and 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26170.

Core Principles of Necessary Parties in Trust Litigation

The judiciary emphasizes complete representation to prevent fragmented litigation and the multiplicity of proceedings. The application of these rules varies based on the role of the trustees:

1. Strict Compliance in Defendant RolesWhen trustees are the defendants, the court views them as necessary parties. For example, trial courts have rejected plaints outright because Order 31, Rule 2 categorically says that all the trustees must be made parties in the suit instituted against the trust 2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 395 and 2006 0 Supreme(Del) 749. Furthermore, a consent decree can be set aside if not all trustees were parties to the compromise, as this constitutes a breach of Order 31 Rule 2 and means the trust was improperly represented 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 4625.

2. Flexibility in Plaintiff RolesConversely, when a trust is the plaintiff, the courts allow more flexibility. In cases involving the St. George's Cathedral Trust, the court maintained that the suit was maintainable even without listing all trustees, confirming that one trustee can act for others 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 4108. If the number of beneficiaries or trustees is vast, the plaintiff may seek leave under Order 1 Rule 8 to represent the group, a procedural step that can be taken at any stage of the proceedings.

Managing Trustee Changes in Pending Suits

A common complication arises when trustees change mid-litigation. This leads to the question of whether substitution is mandatory to keep the suit alive.

The Role of Order 22 Rule 10

When a trustee dies or a new trustee is appointed, Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC typically applies, as it deals with the devolution of interest. This allows the court to permit the substitution of parties to ensure the suit continues without abatement. Applications for such substitutions can be filed throughout the pendency of the suit 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1492.

Substitution vs. Automatic Abatement

In the context of public trusts, the death of a trustee does not typically cause the proceedings to abate under Order 22 CPC. Instead, the remaining trustees continue the action per the principles of Order 31 Rule 1, and substitution can be managed via Order 1 Rule 10 1998 0 Supreme(MP) 732.

Furthermore, the courts have ruled that trusts do not need to undergo the tedious process of substituting trustees every time a new election cycle occurs (e.g., every five years). If the suit was properly constituted at the time of filing, new elections do not necessitate substitution mid-suit 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4053. Existing trustees may continue to adduce evidence, as constant substitution would create unnecessary procedural complications.

Summary of Procedural Outcomes

| Scenario | Applicable Rule | Typical Legal Outcome || :--- | :--- | :--- || Suit filed by a Trust | Order 31 Rule 1 | Maintainable via one authorized trustee 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 4108 || Suit filed against a Trust | Order 31 Rule 2 | All trustees are necessary parties; non-joinder may lead to dismissal 2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 395 || Death of Trustee mid-suit | Order 22 Rule 10 / Order 1 Rule 10 | Substitution is allowed; suit does not automatically abate 1998 0 Supreme(MP) 732 || Change in Trustees via Election | General CPC Principles | No automatic substitution required; original suit remains maintainable 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4053 |

Practical Implications for Litigants

For those engaging in trust-related litigation, precision in the pleading stage is paramount. To avoid the rejection of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, it is generally advisable to implead all known trustees when the trust is the defendant. For those suing on behalf of a trust, ensuring a valid board resolution is in place to authorize the representing trustee is critical.

During the pendency of the suit, parties should monitor changes in trusteeship. While the courts are generally liberal in allowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 to bring new parties on record, filing an Order 22 Rule 10 application promptly prevents the opposing party from challenging the maintainability of the suit.

Ultimately, the courts prioritize substance over form. If a suit was originally properly constituted, it will generally survive changes in the trust's administration. However, because trust laws can intersect with specific statutes—such as the Bombay Public Trusts Act—litigants should ensure that all jurisdictional requirements and permissions are met.

In conclusion, while Order 31 Rule 1 provides flexibility for trusts acting as plaintiffs, Order 31 Rule 2 imposes a strict requirement for all trustees to be joined when the trust is a defendant. Pending suits are generally resilient to trustee changes through the mechanism of substitution, provided the initial filing was correct. As legal outcomes depend heavily on specific facts, these general principles should be applied in consultation with a legal professional.