Section 22 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 22 answers a narrow but common question: what if the deed tells the trustee to sell the trust property within a set time, and he lets that time run on? The section does not make the late sale invalid. It puts the burden of proof on the trustee: if the beneficiary says he was harmed by the delay, the trustee must show he was not, unless a Civil Court had authorised the extension. If a trust deed of yours sets a sale deadline, a legal consultation can help you draft it so it works in practice.
Where a trustee directed to sell within a specified time extends that time, the burden of proving, as between himself and the beneficiary, that the beneficiary is not prejudiced lies on the trustee, unless the extension was authorised by a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The Act's illustration confirms a late sale is not invalid for that reason alone.
Scope of the Act
The Act deals with private trusts. Public, charitable and religious trusts are governed by other laws; see private trust vs public trust. Section 22 is for the trustee of a private trust.
The text
Section 22 reads: "Where a trustee directed to sell within a specified time extends such time, the burden of proving, as between himself and the beneficiary, that the latter is not prejudiced by the extension lies upon the trustee, unless the extension has been authorized by a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction."
Limb by limb
| Part of the section | What it means |
|---|---|
| "directed to sell within a specified time" | The deed (or will) sets a time limit for the sale |
| "extends such time" | The trustee lets the time pass or lengthens it himself |
| "burden of proving ... lies upon the trustee" | If the beneficiary alleges harm, the trustee must show there was none |
| "as between himself and the beneficiary" | The rule is about the trustee-beneficiary relationship, not about third-party buyers |
| "unless the extension has been authorized by a principal Civil Court" | With the Court's authority beforehand, the burden does not fall on the trustee in this way |
Four points follow from the wording.
- The section is about burden of proof, not validity. It does not say that an extended sale is void, and the Act's illustration says the sale is not rendered invalid by the postponement.
- The burden shifts only when the trustee extends the time. If he sells within the specified time, the section is not engaged.
- The Court's authority is the way to avoid the burden. The text names "a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction" and says the extension must have been authorised; it does not say how the application is made.
- The section does not say what compensation is payable. The remedy for loss is in the Act's wider provisions on breach of trust, which we cover in our articles on liability for breach of trust.
The Act's illustration
The Act prints one illustration, restated here in plain words. A bequeaths property to B, directing him with all convenient speed and within five years to sell it and apply the proceeds for the benefit of C. B, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, postpones the sale for six years. The sale is not thereby rendered invalid. C, alleging he has been injured by the postponement, sues B for compensation. In that suit the burden of proving that C has not been injured lies on B.
A modern example of our own
Deepa Chauhan creates a family trust to hold a plot in Nashik. The deed directs the trustee, Arvind, to sell the plot within four years and to pay the proceeds to her son Kabir for his higher studies abroad. Arvind waits five years because the local market was weak. When he finally sells, Kabir says the delay cost him an admission window and a better price.
Under section 22 the late sale is not invalid. But because Arvind extended the time, he has to show Kabir was not prejudiced: for example, by producing price records showing that a sale in year four would have fetched less, or that the proceeds were not needed earlier. If Arvind had applied to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction before the four years ended and obtained authority to extend, the burden would not have fallen on him in the way section 22 describes.
How it fits with section 38
Section 38 (which we cover in our article on sections 37 to 39) says that where a trustee is directed to sell, he may exercise a reasonable discretion as to the time of the sale. Its own illustrations include a direction to sell "with all convenient speed", which does not make an immediate sale imperative. Section 22 deals with a different situation: a specified time that the trustee extends. Read the two together when a deed has a deadline.
What the instrument of trust can change
Section 22 has no "subject to the instrument of trust" wording. A deed can still be drafted to deal with timing, for example by allowing the trustee to extend after informing the beneficiaries, or by fixing a method for the beneficiaries' written consent. The text of section 22 does not say whether such a clause would displace the burden of proof; treat that as a point for legal advice.
Practical points
- Settlors: if you set a time limit, think whether a market-linked window (a sale within a period "or such further period as the beneficiaries approve in writing") suits your family better.
- Trustees: if the deadline cannot be met, consider applying to the Court before it passes, and record the reasons.
- Beneficiaries: keep your own record of the effect of any delay; you may need it in a suit.
- Advisers: see our guide on powers of trustees: sale, lease, investment for the wider picture.
Need help with a sale deadline in a trust?
If your trust deed sets a time for sale, or a trustee has let the time run, our legal consultation service can look at the deed and the options. Bring the deed and the property papers.
Key takeaways
- If a trustee directed to sell within a specified time extends it, he must prove the beneficiary was not prejudiced.
- The burden does not fall that way if a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction authorised the extension.
- The Act's illustration confirms a late sale is not rendered invalid.
- The section is about proof between trustee and beneficiary.
Read next
- Sections 20A and 21: redeemable stock and Government Savings Bank deposit
- Section 23: liability for breach of trust
- Liabilities of trustees for breach of trust
Disclaimer: Based on the text of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 as consulted on 1 October 2026 from a scanned copy; the Act applies to private trusts, and public, charitable and religious trusts are governed by other laws. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text and take advice before acting.