Trustee substitution and promissory note payment rules: successor in office may sue, and payment must reach the holder to discharge liability.

A deceased trustee's legal representative was treated, for substitution and devolution of trust property, as the successor in office rather than merely the personal estate representative; the respondent was therefore properly brought on record. A trustee named as payee in a promissory note could sue on the instrument, because a trustee may be a valid payee. Payment made to someone other than the holder did not amount to a valid discharge under negotiable instruments law, so the alleged payment did not extinguish liability. The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of a credit adjustment for interest, and the cross-objection failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent could be substituted as legal representative of the deceased trustee under the trust law and civil procedure provisions. (ii) Whether the plaintiff, as trustee named in the promissory note, had a right of suit and whether the alleged payment of Rs. 297 gave a valid discharge.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent could be substituted as legal representative of the deceased trustee under the trust law and civil procedure provisions.

Analysis: The trust law provisions were construed independently of the definition of legal representative in the civil procedure code. For purposes of appointment of a successor trustee, the legal representative of the deceased trustee was understood in his personal capacity. For purposes of the suit, however, the legal representative meant the successor in office on whom the trust property devolved. The respondent had been validly appointed and the trust property had devolved upon him in that capacity.

Conclusion: The respondent was properly brought on record.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff, as trustee named in the promissory note, had a right of suit and whether the alleged payment of Rs. 297 gave a valid discharge.

Analysis: The promissory note named the trustees acting for the community, and a trustee can be a payee under a negotiable instrument. On that construction, the plaintiff was a named payee and had a right to sue. As to the alleged payment, discharge under the negotiable instruments law is obtained only by payment to the holder of the instrument. Payment to another person, without acceptance by the payee or holder, does not constitute a valid discharge.

Conclusion: The plaintiff had a right of suit, and the payment of Rs. 297 did not discharge the defendants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, and the decree stood only with the limited modification regarding credit for interest, while the cross-objection was also rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A deceased trustee's legal representative for substitution is the successor in office for the trust property, and a trustee named as payee in a promissory note may sue; payment discharges liability only when made to the holder of the instrument.

---