Non-joinder of co-trustees is a curable defect; courts may allow impleadment and amendment to bring all trustees on record.

A proceeding instituted on behalf of a trust by one trustee alone is not necessarily void ab initio. The omission to join co-trustees may amount to a curable defect of non-joinder of necessary parties, especially where the trust instrument does not bar correction and no limitation prejudice arises. The Court may, in an appropriate case, invoke Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the remaining trustees and permit consequential amendment so that all interested persons are before the Court. On these principles, the refusal to implead was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed with the other trustees on record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition instituted by one trustee alone, without joining the other co-trustees, was a nullity or a curable defect; (ii) Whether the Court could permit impleadment of the remaining trustees and consequential amendment of the petitions under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether a petition instituted by one trustee alone, without joining the other co-trustees, was a nullity or a curable defect.

Analysis: The office of co-trustees is ordinarily joint, and all trustees should normally be before the Court when proceedings are taken on behalf of the trust. However, the omission to join all trustees does not necessarily make the proceeding a void proceeding in every case. The defect may be one of non-joinder of necessary parties and not an incurable illegality, particularly where the trust instrument does not exclude such correction and no prejudice of limitation arises.

Conclusion: The proceeding was not treated as a nullity merely because it had originally been instituted by one trustee alone.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court could permit impleadment of the remaining trustees and consequential amendment of the petitions under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Analysis: The power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure extends to adding necessary parties even where omission to join them may otherwise be serious, and the accompanying amendment can be allowed so that all persons interested in the trust are before the Court. The authorities relied upon by the respondents did not exclude such corrective action, and the absence of any bar of limitation supported the grant of relief.

Conclusion: The impleadment application and the consequential amendment were allowable.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the orders refusing impleadment were set aside, and the matters were directed to proceed after bringing the other trustees on record.

Ratio Decidendi: A proceeding instituted on behalf of a trust by only one trustee is not necessarily void ab initio, and the Court may, in an appropriate case, permit impleadment of the remaining trustees and amendment of the pleadings to cure the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.

---