2009 (1) TMI 837 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Managing Committee was in management and control of the said Gurudwara Sahib and was entitled thereto as also the respondent was not a Mohtmim of the said Gurudwara?

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over management of Gurudwara Sant Bela Sahib Patshahi Naumin; Interpretation of power of attorney clauses; Validity of management post death of founder; Res judicata principle applicability.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the management of Gurudwara Sant Bela Sahib Patshahi Naumin following the death of the founder, Sant Surjan Singh. After his demise, a power of attorney was executed appointing individuals to manage the Gurudwara. The key issue arose when Sant Hari Singh claimed to be the Mohtmim of the Gurudwara, leading to legal battles between him and the Managing Committee. Two suits were filed, one by Sant Hari Singh and the other by the Managing Committee, seeking injunction and declaration respectively.

The trial court decreed in favor of Sant Hari Singh, granting him a permanent injunction against the Managing Committee. The appellate court upheld this decision, stating that possession and management of the Gurudwara vested in Sant Hari Singh as the Mohtmim. The court also noted that the power of attorney ceased to have effect after the founder's death. Dissatisfied with the judgments, the Managing Committee and the appellant filed appeals which were dismissed by the High Court.

The High Court applied the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that since the Managing Committee did not file a Second Appeal against the previous judgment, it had attained finality. The court held that the findings in the previous suit were binding on the appellants, and thus, they could not challenge the judgments. The High Court's decision was supported by legal arguments regarding the application of res judicata principles and previous case laws.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reiterated the principle of res judicata as per Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that the finality of judgments in connected suits must be respected unless set aside in accordance with the law. The court concluded that the appellants failed to establish any merit in their appeal and dismissed it, upholding the High Court's decision based on the principles of res judicata and finality of judgments in related suits.