Trust disputes in India arise most commonly in three settings. First, in family trusts — where the trust was created as part of an estate or succession plan, the settlor has died, and the beneficiaries (often siblings or cousins) dispute the trustee's management of the trust assets, the exercise of discretionary powers, or the allocation of income and capital between them. Second, in business family trusts — where the trust holds shares in a family company and the disputes between trustees and beneficiaries are entangled with disputes over the management and control of the business. Third, in charitable trusts — where the trustees have misapplied charitable funds, used trust property for personal benefit, or failed to apply income to the charitable objects for which the trust was created.
The legal arsenal available to a beneficiary who believes a trustee has breached their duty is substantial — an action for an account of trust dealings, an action for restoration of misapplied trust assets, an application to remove the trustee and appoint a replacement, an application for the appointment of a receiver to manage the trust assets during the dispute, and — where the breach involves criminal misappropriation — a complaint under Section 316 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 for criminal breach of trust. GP deploys the appropriate combination of remedies for each specific situation, always with an assessment of what is likely to achieve the fastest and most complete restoration of the trust estate.
Where a trustee has applied trust property for their own benefit, diverted trust income to related parties, invested trust assets in transactions from which they personally benefit, or failed to invest trust assets prudently — they are in breach of trust and personally liable to the beneficiaries for the loss. GP brings civil proceedings for breach of trust — seeking restoration of the misapplied assets, an account of all trust dealings, and compensation for any loss caused to the trust estate by the trustee's breach. Where the misapplication is deliberate and dishonest, GP simultaneously files a complaint under BNS Section 316 (criminal breach of trust) — creating personal criminal liability alongside the civil recovery proceedings.
The removal of a trustee is a drastic remedy — but one that is available where the trustee has placed themselves in a position of conflict of interest, has acted in breach of trust, has become incapable of acting (through death, incapacity, or absence abroad), or where the continued presence of the trustee makes it impossible to administer the trust for the beneficiaries' benefit. GP applies for trustee removal in the High Court under the Indian Trusts Act, simultaneously applying for the appointment of a replacement trustee (which may be a professional trustee or a person nominated by the beneficiaries), and — where the trust assets are at risk during the removal proceedings — for the appointment of a receiver to manage the assets in the interim.
A beneficiary has a fundamental right to inspect the trust accounts and to receive a proper account of how the trust has been administered. Where a trustee refuses to provide accounts, provides incomplete or misleading accounts, or delays the rendering of accounts unreasonably, the beneficiary may apply to the High Court for an order directing the trustee to render a full and proper account. GP files applications for trust accounts — obtaining court orders requiring the trustee to produce all trust records, investment statements, bank accounts, and correspondence — and uses GP's forensic accounting team to analyse the accounts for irregularities, misapplications, and transactions that require explanation.
Many trust disputes arise not from dishonesty but from genuine ambiguity in the trust deed — uncertainty about who qualifies as a beneficiary, about how the trustee's discretion is to be exercised, about whether a particular type of income or capital is distributable, or about what happens when a beneficiary dies before the trust vests. GP advises on trust deed interpretation — providing a legal opinion on the correct construction of the disputed provision — and where the parties cannot agree on the interpretation, brings proceedings in the High Court for a declaratory judgment on the correct interpretation. The High Court's construction of the trust deed is then binding on all parties and on the trustee in administering the trust going forward.
In a discretionary trust, the trustee has the power to decide which beneficiaries receive distributions and in what amounts. This discretion is not absolute — the trustee must exercise it in good faith, for proper purposes, and taking into account all relevant considerations. A trustee who exercises discretion for an improper purpose (to benefit themselves or a favoured family member), who fails to consider the interests of all beneficiaries, or who acts under the undue influence of one beneficiary against the others, has exercised their discretion in breach of their fiduciary duty. GP challenges the exercise of trustee discretion in the High Court — seeking to have the trustee's decision set aside, the discretion exercised afresh, and compensation paid for any loss caused to the disadvantaged beneficiaries.
Not every trust dispute involves a trustee who has behaved wrongly. Beneficiaries sometimes bring unfounded or exaggerated claims against trustees — arising from misunderstanding of the trust's terms, from family conflict unrelated to the trust's administration, or from unrealistic expectations about the trust's performance. GP defends trustees against claims of breach of trust — establishing that the trustee's investment decisions were within the range of reasonable choices available to a prudent trustee, that the exercise of discretion was genuine and informed, that the accounts are accurate and complete, and that the beneficiary's complaint does not disclose a legal breach. A trustee who acts properly and is nevertheless subjected to litigation deserves a complete and vigorous defence.
A trust dispute can last years — and during that time the trustee in whom the beneficiaries have lost confidence continues to manage the trust assets. The most urgent step in a trust dispute is therefore the application for interim relief — an injunction restraining the trustee from dealing with trust assets pending the hearing, or the appointment of a receiver to take custody of the assets. GP applies for urgent interim relief at the commencement of every trust dispute where there is a material risk that the trust assets will be dissipated, transferred, or diminished during the litigation. The application is typically made on short notice to the respondent trustee — and in serious cases, ex parte in the first instance.
Where a trustee has transferred trust property to a third party — a related company, a family member, or a business associate — the beneficiaries can trace the property into the hands of the recipient and recover it, unless the recipient is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the trust. GP's forensic accounting team traces misapplied trust assets through complex fund flow structures, identifying the entities to which trust property has been transferred and establishing that those entities cannot claim the protection of the bona fide purchaser rule. Tracing is frequently the most powerful remedy in trust disputes — because it follows the property, not merely the trustee.
Many private family trusts in India have beneficiaries who are settled abroad — in the UAE, UK, USA, Australia, or Canada. These NRI beneficiaries often have no day-to-day visibility into the trust's administration and rely entirely on the trustee's annual accounts and distributions. When distributions stop, accounts are not rendered, or information suggests that trust assets are being mismanaged, the NRI beneficiary needs legal representation in India to compel the trustee to account and to enforce their beneficiary rights. GP manages trust dispute proceedings on behalf of NRI beneficiaries through Power of Attorney arrangements — the beneficiary does not need to travel to India to enforce their rights in a trust dispute.
The most important evidence in a trust dispute is often in the accounts — the fund flows that reveal misapplication, the investment decisions that reveal self-dealing, the distributions that reveal favouritism, and the expenses that reveal personal benefit. GP's in-house forensic accounting team analyses trust accounts at the transaction level — not merely reviewing the summary figures but tracing individual payments, identifying related-party transactions, and reconstructing the economic reality of the trust's administration. This forensic capability is what converts a beneficiary's suspicion into evidence that can be placed before the court.
Where a trustee's breach is deliberate and dishonest — not merely negligent — the effective response combines civil proceedings for recovery with a criminal complaint under BNS Section 316 (criminal breach of trust). The criminal complaint creates personal liberty risk for the trustee and dramatically increases the pressure to restore misapplied trust assets. GP's criminal defence team handles the BNS Section 316 complaint while the civil litigation team runs the recovery proceedings — with a coordinated strategy that ensures the positions in both forums are consistent and mutually reinforcing.
GP represents both trustees defending their conduct and beneficiaries challenging it. This dual practice gives GP a complete understanding of how trust disputes are constructed — and how they are defeated. A firm that only represents beneficiaries does not understand the legitimate scope of trustee discretion; a firm that only represents trustees does not appreciate the full force of the beneficiary's rights. GP's experience on both sides produces better advice in each specific case — a more realistic assessment of the merits, a more effective litigation strategy, and a clearer view of where the case can and should be settled.
Represented two sibling beneficiaries of a Mumbai family discretionary trust holding a significant stake in a family manufacturing company. The managing trustee — their eldest brother — had for four years exercised his discretionary powers to make distributions exclusively to himself while denying distributions to the other two beneficiaries, and had caused the trust to invest in a property development project controlled by his personal company at above-market rates. GP applied for and obtained an injunction freezing the trust assets, had a receiver appointed, and filed suit for breach of trust. GP's forensic accounting team quantified the misapplied distributions and the above-market trust investments at Rs.22 crore. The Bombay High Court removed the managing trustee, ordered full accounts, and directed the restoration of Rs.22 crore to the trust — which was then distributed equally among all three beneficiaries.
Acted for an NRI woman resident in Australia whose late father's family trust had excluded her from distributions after her marriage — the trustee (her brother) relying on a trust deed clause that referred to "children" and arguing that on marriage she ceased to be within the class of beneficiaries. GP filed a suit in the Delhi High Court for a declaration on the correct interpretation of the trust deed, arguing that the use of "children" in the deed included married daughters under the settled principle that a beneficial instrument is to be construed in favour of the beneficiary. The High Court agreed with GP's interpretation, held that the plaintiff remained a beneficiary despite her marriage, and ordered the trustee to pay all arrears of distribution from the date she was wrongly excluded — a sum of Rs.8 crore over six years.
Defended a professional trustee of a private family trust against a claim by one of the beneficiaries that the trustee had committed a breach of trust by failing to liquidate equity investments before the 2020 market decline, resulting in a loss of Rs.6 crore in portfolio value. GP established before the Bombay High Court that: the trustee's investment decisions had been made in accordance with a written investment policy approved by all beneficiaries; the trustee had obtained independent investment advice; the decision to remain invested was consistent with the prudent investor standard for a long-term trust portfolio; and market timing decisions of the kind demanded by the beneficiary were speculative, not prudent. The High Court dismissed the claim, holding that a trustee who follows a sound investment process and takes independent advice is not liable for market losses.
The practice appears before the Bombay, Delhi, Karnataka, and Madras High Courts in trust disputes, before the Charity Commissioner in public trust matters, and in the Criminal Courts where BNS Section 316 complaints are appropriate. For NRI beneficiaries, GP manages proceedings entirely through Power of Attorney arrangements.
Trust disputes that are embedded in business family conflicts are handled with GP's corporate and M&A team — ensuring that the trust dispute strategy and the company dispute strategy are coordinated and mutually consistent.
A plain-language guide to trust disputes in India — the trustee's fiduciary duties, the full range of remedies for breach of trust, and the tracing claim that follows property into third-party hands.
Read Insight →Business family trusts hold voting shares — and the trust dispute is inseparable from the company control dispute. The strategy for managing both simultaneously, and why the trust proceedings must be aligned with the company proceedings.
Read Insight →Whether you are a beneficiary who suspects a trustee has breached their duty, a trustee who is being subjected to an unfounded claim, or a successor trustee who has inherited a trust with unexplained losses — GP provides the complete legal, forensic, and strategic response that trust disputes require.